by Paul Alan Levy
There is an interesting discussion about the impact of the Internet (and the economic downturn) on the ability of the press to conduct in-depth investigations, and hence of the need to protect whistleblowers, in today’s Fourth Circuit ruling about whether the First Amendment protects a police official’s leaking to the Baltimore Sun of an internal memo addressing at a coverup of complaint wrongdoing in connection with a shooting of a citizen by the police department’s tactical squad. Public Citizen had argued as amicus curiae in the case. A statement by my colleague Bonnie Robin-Vergeer on the ruling is here.
The case was about whether the so-called Garcetti rule, which took away First Amendment protection for speech by public employees expressed in the course of their job responsibilities, extended to the public leaking of a memo send within the Department. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, in a three page concurring opinion, addressed the issue in the context of cutbacks in the staffs of newsgathering organizations, and speculates about “whether the Internet and the online ventures of traditional journalistic enterprises” can fill this void; “whether the web — or other forms of modern media – can replicate the deep sourcing and accumulated insights of the seasoned beat reporter,” and :whether niche publications and proliferating siters and outlets cam provide the community focus on governmental shortcomings that professional and independent metropolitan dailies have historically brought to bear. Judge Wilkinson – himself a former newspaper editor – obviously has his doubts, and argues that there is, therefore, an especial need to protect whistleblowers against retaliation. "It seems inimical to First Amendment principles to treat too summarily those who bring, often at some personal risk, the operations of the state] into public view."
Comments