Jailing reporters

Washington Post: Yet another reporter is facing jail at the hands of a federal judge for doing his job. Jim Taricani, a reporter for WJAR television in Rhode Island, was convicted last week of criminal contempt of court for refusing to identify the person who leaked him an FBI videotape of a public official in Providence taking a bribe. The story clearly was important. Several local officials, including the one on tape, went to prison in connection with the federal corruption investigation that produced the tape. But Chief Judge Ernest Torres of federal district court in Providence appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the leak. Taricani honorably has refused to violate the promise of confidentiality he had to give his source to get important information to the public. As a consequence, Taricani, who has a history of heart trouble, could face up to six months in jail.
Criminal contempt
Taricani's case is unusual in one key respect. When courts lean on journalists to give up their sources, they normally hold them in civil contempt -- a device designed to force people into compliance with court orders through fines or jail time. But coercive fines haven't loosened Taricani's tongue, and Judge Torres has now gone the wholly unwarranted extra step of convicting him of criminal contempt -- that is, the crime of disobeying a court order -- for which he will be punished as a lawbreaker.
In the broader sense, however, Taricani's case unfortunately is not unusual at all. It is part of a rash of recent cases in which judges are seeking to force journalists to renege on promises of confidentiality, using the threat of jail as leverage. Without such promises, much good journalism wouldn't happen. If the federal courts will not recognize a privilege for reporters such as Taricani, as most states do, Congress needs to step in and do it for them.