Reporters Privilege in the Era of the Internet Journalists right to use confidential information and anonymous sources is considered

to be one of the cornerstones of press freedom and democracy. The aim of reporters privilege (or shield law) a reporters protection from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources is to safeguard the publics right to know by protecting the rights of journalists and their use of confidential sources. In the era of traditional media (print, television, radio) it was relatively easy to define the scope of reporters privilege, in terms of who and which media outlets belonged to the realm of shield laws. The internet, however, has challenged traditional conceptions and caused confusion among legislators and judiciaries in different countries. It is not at all clear anymore who is a journalist and who or what should be protected by reporters privilege. The aim of this paper is to investigate how the scope of reporters privilege is defined by legislation in six different countries, with regard to its subjects and the people and things that it protects. We first examine the special characteristics of reporters privilege in Australia, Finland, Germany, Norway Sweden, and the US, comparing differences, and then place them at a continuum for these definitions. At one end of the continuum, reporters privilege is technology neutral and applies to anyone providing a message in public, while at the other end of the continuum, reporters privilege is restricted only to professional journalists. Finland In Finland freedom of expression and access to information is guaranteed in Section 12 of the Constitution of Finland (731/1999). Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to protect the sources of information, the confidentiality of the information source can nevertheless be regarded as an essential part of the freedom of expression (Tiilikka 2008, 34). The protection of confidential information sources is defined in Section 16 of the Act on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media (Laki sananvapauden kyttmisest joukkoviestinnss; 460/2003) so that "the originator of a message provided to the public, the publisher and the broadcaster are entitled to maintain the confidentiality of the source of the information in the message." That means that the right to protect the confidentiality of information sources applies to everyone who has drawn up a message or delivered it to the public, regardless of whether that person is a journalist or not. Also, a person who has become aware of confidential information while in the service of the originator of the message, the publisher, or the broadcaster is similarly entitled to maintain that confidentiality.1 The confidentiality of an information source can be broken under certain conditions either in a pre-trial investigation or in trial. These exceptions are defined in the Criminal Investigations Act (Esitutkintalaki; 449/1987, Sec. 27) and the Code of Judicial Procedure (Oikeudenkymiskaari; 571/1948, Chap. 17 Sec. 24 Subs. 4). In a pre-trial investigation the confidentiality of an information source can be broken only in case of a felony. This requires that the maximum penalty of the crime in question is at least six years
1

The English (unofficial) translation of Laki sananvapauden kyttmisest joukkoviestinnss (13.6.2003/460) is here: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2003/en20030460.pdf (FINLEX), accessed 17 June 2012.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2031491

imprisonment. In trial the confidentiality of a source can also be broken when the information has been given against an obligation to maintain secrecy - if according to the law a punishment has been provided for breaking confidentiality. The conditions for breaking the protection of information sources are thus broader in court proceedings than in pre-trial investigations. To guarantee the freedom of speech, the Parliamentary Law Committee (Eduskunnan lakivaliokunnan mietint 9/1986) has considered it important that only so-called key witnesses are ordered to testify and that the protection should not be broken if it is not obvious that the witness has important information (Tiilikka 2008, 36-38, Tiilikka 2010, 50-51). The Finnish source protection regulation is neutral regarding the medium in which the message is published as it treats all kinds of communication uniformly provided that the information is provided to the public. Thus, the press, radio, or television broadcasting or journalists do not have a better or wider protection than other ways of communication or ordinary people. It is also important to note that in Finland there is a right to maintain the confidentiality of the information source, not an obligation to protect the information source. Australia Protection of journalistic sources in Australia is covered in the Evidence Amendment (Journalists Privilege) Act 2011. Before the shield law, journalists in Australia could be held in contempt of court if they refused to disclose their sources. In 2007 two Herald Sun journalists were fined for being in contempt of court for refusing to reveal sources for a story about cuts to war veterans entitlements. According to the court, journalists are not above the law when protecting their sources. They had no legal protection in these situations, even when attempting to comply with their own code of ethics. This caused personal and professional difficulties for the journalists. Among other things, their criminal records mean that working in the US became practically impossible (OShea 2011). The new shield law provides that [i]f a journalist has promised an informant not to disclose his or her identity, neither the journalist nor his or her employer is compellable to answer any question or produce any document that would disclose the identity of the informant or enable their identity to be ascertained. (Evidence Amendment (Journalists Privilege) Act 2011) In passing the bill in March 2011, the Senate agreed to amendments that extended the coverage of the shield law beyond professional journalists. The scope of the federal shield law was dramatically widened by the Greens, who persuaded the government to extend the scheme beyond the traditional news media (Merritt 2011). The law defines a journalist as a person who is engaged and active in the publication of news and may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in the news medium. The news medium is defined as any medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news (ibid.). In the earlier version of the bill, the definition of a journalist was narrower: a person who in the normal course of that persons work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in the news medium. (Evidence Amendment (Journalists Privilege) Bill 2010 No.2) The amendments were aimed at making the legislation neutral regarding technology and at covering not only professional journalists but also bloggers, citizen journalists, and employees of independent media organizations. Representative Andrew Wilkie, who proposed the original law, told the parliament that 2

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2031491

the laws recognize the rapidly changing face of news, news medium and the people who deliver it The intent is not to offer blanket protection to everybody and anybody out there making public comments The definition of a journalist who is someone engaged and active in the publication of news will direct the protection to those who deserve and require it (Massola 2011). However, among the legal experts it seems not to be clear whom the law will cover. Media lawyer Veronica Scott of Minter Ellison said in an interview that the law now extends the protection of sources to anybody who sends news by the internet and I query what news means in terms of this broadened definition of journalist (Merrit 2011). The protection of journalists and their sources by the shield law is qualified. Disclosure of the sources may be required if the public interest outweighs the adverse effects of disclosure. It is up to those parties who want to force a journalist to reveal their source to establish the appropriate criteria, and the identification of the relevant public interest is a matter for the determination of the court. The court will take into account such considerations as the primacy of the administration of justice and the need to protect national security (Explanatory Memorandum/ Evidence Amendment (Journalists Privilege) Bill 2010). The shield law applies only in proceedings involving federal laws. The states of New South Wales and Victoria introduced new shield laws after the federal legislation. The legislations of those states will be confined to professional journalists and do not include the amendment which extended the legislation to cover amateur bloggers. In New South Wales legislation a journalist is defined as a person engaged in the profession or occupation of journalism in connection with the publication of information in a news medium. (Evidence Amendment (Journalist Privilege) Act 2011 No 18) In the state of Victoria, the shield law was introduced into the legislative Assembly on June 6, 2012. The drafters defined journalist quite similarly as was done in New South Wales as a person engaged in the profession or occupation of journalism in connection with the publication of information, comment, opinion or analysis in a news medium. The explanatory memorandum of the legislation in Victoria states that the definition of journalist uses the term engaged in the profession or occupation of journalism, and is intended to be slightly broader than employed as it can also mean occupied. When determining whether a person is a journalist, regard must be had to a number of indicative factors, including whether the practice of journalism constitutes a significant proportion of the person's work, whether the person's journalistic work is regularly published in a news medium, and whether the person or the publisher is accountable to comply (through a complaints process) with recognized journalistic or media professional standards or codes of practice. Occasional bloggers clearly do not fulfill the criteria, but are serious citizen journalists or people working for independent, non-profit media organizations considered to be journalists? To this date we are not aware of Australian court cases in which the scope and the limits of the definition of a journalist would have been interpreted. Norway In Norway freedom of expression is guaranteed in Section 100 of The Constitution (Grunnlov; 17 May 1814). More explicit protection of sources of information is given in Lov om mekling og rettergang i sivile tvister 22-11) and the Criminal Procedure Act (22 May 1981 No. 25 125; Lov om rettergangsmten I straffesaker). The conditions for the right to protect the information sources are the same in both laws, 3

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2031491

and there is no reason to assume that weighting would be different in criminal and in civil cases. The editor of a printed publication or broadcast may refuse to provide access to evidence about who is the source of any information contained in it. The same applies to evidence about who is the source of other information that has been confided to the editor for use in his work. Also other persons who have acquired knowledge of the source through their work for the publishers, editorial office, press agency, or printing office in question have the same right as the editor.2 When important social interests require that the information is given and it is of considerable importance to the clarification of a case, a court may, basing its opinion on an overall assessment, order the source to be revealed. If the source has revealed matters that were in the public interest to publicize, the witness may be ordered to reveal the information source only when this is found to be particularly necessary. The threshold for such a court order is in practice very high. The protection of sources applies correspondingly to other persons who have acquired knowledge of the source through their work for the publisher, editorial office, press agency, or printing office in question, and colleagues in radio and television broadcasting or other media activity that has mainly the same purpose as newspapers and broadcasting. In conclusion, the Norwegian legislation grants the right to protect information sources when the information is meant to be published in journalistic activity and is given to a journalist or someone working in journalistic activity. An author of a book may also rely on source protection if the content of the book bears a resemblance to journalism. In court practice, a discussion forum on the Internet has been covered by the source protection when the forum was part of an online newspaper and had an editor-in-chief. Committee report NOU 2011:12 (Ytringsfrihet og ansvar i en ny mediahverdag) suggests reformulating the scope of the source protection to be independent of any particular media technology, in accordance with court practice. The decisive criteria should be if the medium, or the statement made within a medium, has a purpose that justifies the rules giving protection to information sources. That is, if the purpose of the expression is to contribute to the formation of opinions and public debate. Also in the future - as nowadays - 1) the presence of an editor-in-chief or 2) the fact that the publication has subjected itself to the press's self-regulation system or 3) authorship by someone with a background as a professional journalist is believed to be sufficient evidence to confirm this. However, these are not necessary or essential conditions for the right to protect information sources. The decisive factor is the journalistic purpose. An ordinary person could also enjoy the protection of information sources if he or she has a journalistic purpose when, for example, blogging. The majority of the committee did not consider it necessary to guarantee an absolute right to confidentiality to the information source or to ban investigation into the identity of the information source (as in Sweden), because the function of the source protection lies in disseminating information to the public, not in protecting the sources as such.

Dispute Act Sec. 22-11 and Criminal Procedure Act Sec. 125.The English translations of the act are here: http://www.ub.uio.no/cgi-bin/ujur/ulov/sok.cgi?type=LOV, accessed 18 June 2012. See also Lindahl 2009.

The United States Protection for reporters confidential sources varies in different parts of the US since federal shield law does not exist and state shield laws vary. In 2011 there were statutory protections in 38 states and the District of Columbia, while court-adopted evidentiary rules accomplish the same purpose in New Mexico and Utah. In states without statutory or rule protection, all but Wyoming have case laws that give some sort of protection based on interpretations of state or federal constitutional law or common law (Fargo 2011, 51-52). Debates about the need for a federal shield law have been ongoing since the US Supreme Court decision in 1972 not least because of the heterogeneous legal environment. In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) three journalists argued that without such a privilege, many sources with important information would fear talking to the press. But the Supreme Court determined that the press clause did not excuse journalists from every citizens obligation to respond to a grand jury subpoena and provide relevant information to a criminal investigation (Fargo 2011, 50). After a number of cases in which journalists who refused to reveal confidential sources were jailed or threatened with jail or fines for contempt of court, bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress to create a federal shield law in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. The proposals of 2007 and 2009 passed in the House but died in the Senate (Derrick 2011). In 2010 the Reporters Committee and other journalist organizations were working hard to persuade the Senate to vote on a shield law, but the Senate had been hung up over defining who would be covered by the law (Dalglish 2010, 1). It has been speculated that getting a law through has become much tougher because of WikiLeaks, which published classified diplomatic documents - although the law would hardly protect organizations such as WikiLeaks. Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, estimated that a shield law would not protect WikiLeaks or other organizations providing data dumps. The actual journalists would, among other things, review and verify the documents and seek out alternative views (Dalglish 2010, 1). In the latest step, a new bill was reintroduced in the House of Representatives in September 2011. The Free Flow of Information Act of 2011 is similar to the bills in 2005, 2007, and 2009. The reintroduced bill would provide a qualified privilege for journalists with a number of exceptions, including information regarding terrorist activity, national security, the prevention of death and bodily harm, or if information is deemed critical in a criminal case. The bill defines a covered person as a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of persons livelihood or for substantial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person (Bill Text 112th Congress H.R. 2932). The definition of a journalist applied here assesses if the person is regularly gathering information for public dissemination, instead of whether or not the journalist is paid by a news organization the definition that was included in an earlier draft of the 2009 bill. The medium is not defined, and obviously online media would be included. However, in its present form the bill clearly seems to exclude individual non-professional bloggers and accidental citizen journalists and protect only professional journalists earning their living through journalism.

At the time this was written (June 2012), there was no information available about the fate or future of the bill in the Senate. Sweden In Sweden the constitution The Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen; 28.2.1974) guarantees freedom of opinion and freedom of expression and information. The right to protect the confidentiality of information sources can be derived from the constitution and from the European Convention on Human Rights, which is in force as a law. In addition to this, the reporter's privilege is further and in details regulated in two other laws which also have a constitutional status. According to those laws, the Swedish system of freedom of speech is built upon the responsibility of the editor-in-chief. The confidentiality of sources exists only when information has been given to a medium or a journalist or other person covered by the responsibility of the editor-in-chief (redaktoransvar) or if the expresser of the message has a special certificate of publishing (utgivningsbevis).3 According to Swedish constitutional laws, there is not a right but a duty to protect information sources. Thus, protection of information sources is the right belonging to the information source, not to the journalist. The breach of that right is criminally sanctioned. As previously said, the duty to protect the information sources is stated in two different constitutional laws. The Freedom of the Press Act4 (Tryckfrihetsordning; 1949:105) applies to printed expressions. These can be, for example, texts, drawings, pictures, or maps. The law protects social, religious, and scientific expressions, economic issues, and entertainment. Advertisements, commercial messages, or emails are not covered by the act. Whether the act applies or not is also determined by the manufacturing technique or dependent on whether the publication/writing has a special certificate of publication (Chap. 1 Art. 5). Tying the scope of the law to expressions expressed with certain kind of technology has caused difficulties as it is not always possible to determine what kind of technique has been used. In addition, that kind of "instrument-tied" regulation can be criticized as it threatens different means of communication differently without an objective reason. Chapter 3 Article 3 defines the duty to protect the information sources as belonging to "a person who has engaged in the production or publication of printed matter, or material intended for insertion therein, and a person who has been active in an enterprise for the publication of printed matter, or an enterprise which professionally provides news or other material to periodicals." That person may not disclose what has come to his or her knowledge in this connection concerning the identity of a person who has communicated information. There are some limitations to the duty of confidentiality. The duty of confidentiality does not apply, for example, if the source has given his or her consent for the disclosure of his or her identity or if the matter concerns certain offences specified in the law or "when, in any other case, a court of law deems it to be of exceptional importance, with regard to a public or private interest, for information concerning identity to be produced on examination of witnesses or of a party in the proceedings under oath."
3

However, other persons can rely on the protection given by the The Instrument of Government and European Convention on Human Rights. At the national legislation there is not more detailed regulation on that. 4 The translated name of the act is used on the Swedish Parliaments website, http://www.riksdagen.se/en/Documents-and-laws/Laws/The-Constitution/, accessed 18 July 2012.

The other act guaranteeing the duty to protect information sources is the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression5 (Yttrandefrihetsgrundlag; 1991:1469). It applies to radio programs, television programs, and to the content of other certain transmissions of sound, pictures, or text made using electromagnetic waves, as well as to the content of certain public playbacks from a database. It also applies to movies, videos, and audiotapes as well as to CD and DVD recordings if they have been published. It does not apply to images of children in pornographic pictures.6 The blogs and homepages on the Internet are in the scope of the source protection if only the operator of that activity can publish content and if the operator has a certificate of publishing. Possessing this certificate is not very usual; there are about 700 certificates for bloggers and others engaging in similar activity. Thus, bloggers and the like are not usually covered by the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expressions protection. However, they have the protection that the constitutional law The Instrument of Government and the ECHR give to them. The duty to protect the information sources is stated in Chapter 2 Article 3 so that "a person who has been concerned in the production or dissemination of an item comprising or intended to form part of a radio programme or technical recording and a person who has been active in a news agency may not disclose what has come to his or her knowledge in this connection concerning the identity of the person who ... communicated information."7 There are exemptions for the duty of confidentiality. They are the same as those for printed messages in the Freedom of the Press Act. In summary, in Sweden the confidentiality of sources is a right established for the information source. The duty to protect the information sources applies to those who have contributed to publishing or disseminating messages in mediums covered by Swedish constitutional laws (in print, radio and television programs, or in certain kinds of databases). The provision covers anyone who has contributed to the production of content in a medium covered by the constitutional protection or who has a certificate of publishing. This applies regardless of position, function, or level of involvement or what stage of the process the person has participated in. The confidential relationship to informants applies even in cases where the information is not published or used as a basis for publication, provided that the purpose of handover was that the information would reach the public. According to the Swedish laws, a public authority or other public body shall not inquire into the identity of the person who has communicated information under the protection of constitutional law. However, there are some exceptions to this.

The translated name of the act is used on the Swedish Parliaments website, http://www.riksdagen.se/en/Documents-and-laws/Laws/The-Constitution/, accessed 18 July 2012. 6 Chap. 1 Art. 9. 7 Chapter 1 Article 2 reads as follows: "Every Swedish citizen is guaranteed the right to communicate information on any subject whatsoever to authors and other originators, as well as to editors, editorial offices, news agencies and enterprises for the production of technical recordings for publication in radio programmes or such recordings. He or she also has the right to procure information on any subject whatsoever for such communication or publication. No restriction of these rights shall be permitted other than such as follows from this Fundamental Law." The English translation is from here: http://infoportal.fra.europa.eu/InfoPortal/infobaseShowContent.do?btnCat_300&btnCountryBread_195, accessed 25 June 2012.

Germany Freedom of expression and information as well as freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films are guaranteed in Article 5 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz; 23 May 1949). German freedom of speech laws are state specific. Therefore, each state must accept all the federal media laws. A federal media or press law does not exist, but the press laws at the state level, however, resemble each other. The right to protect the confidentiality of information sources is largely based on freedom of speech and freedom of the press as guaranteed in the German Constitution and in the case law of the Constitutional Court. Freedom of the press includes the right to manufacture and distribute print materials, editorial confidentiality, protection of editorial research, the right to refuse to testify, and the right of access to public events and major sporting events.8 Also, the state laws include detailed provisions on the protection of information sources and seizure. The German Constitutional Court interpreted as early as 1966 that the right to protect the confidentiality of information sources is part of the freedom of the press guaranteed in the German constitution.9 The judgment held that freedom of the press includes the protection of confidential relations between journalists and their sources. This is very important, because the press is able to make use of anonymous sources only if it can be absolutely sure about the right to protect the confidentiality of their information sources. The German Code of Criminal Procedure includes provisions on the right to refuse to testify. According to section 53 (The right to refuse to testify on the basis of profession), the right to refuse to testify is granted, for example, to persons who are or have been professionally manufacturing, producing, or spreading periodical publications, radio programs, or documentary films or providing communication or information services relating to education or opinion building. When the information has been received in their capacity as a professional, the above-mentioned persons are entitled to refuse to testify who has provided them with information or what the content of that information is. However, the right to protect information sources applies also to persons with a profession other than journalism if the participation in media activity is professional (not just occasional or on and off). The reporters privilege probably applies also to those publications on the Internet which meet the definitions mentioned above. Blogs are probably not covered by the reporter's privilege. The reporter's privilege is a very strong right. For example, when investigating a crime, a journalist cannot be forced to reveal his or her information source.
Conclusion

The legislation of reporters privilege has special characteristics in each country. The focus of our paper is on how the scope of reporters privilege is defined in the six countries that we have investigated, with regard to who the subjects of reporters privilege are and who is protected by it. In Figure 1, we place the countries on a continuum, at one end of which reporters privilege is restricted only to professional journalists, while at the other end, reporters privilege is technology neutral and applies anyone
8

About freedom of the press, see Drr Schwartmann: Medienrecht, 3. Ed and C.F. Mller 2010 s. 45 54. See also the judgment of the Constitutional Court BVerfG, 1 BvR 538/06, 27.2.2007. 9 BVerfGE 20, 162 Spiegel 5, 5.8.1966.

providing a message in public. The first of these refers to reporters privilege as what we call a guild privilege, while the second sees it as what we call a universal right.

Ger
Guild privilege

USA

Aus
Universal right

Swe

Nor

Fi

Figure 1: The scope of reporters privilege.

The countries under investigation in this paper can be roughly divided into two groups, with regard to how the scope of reporters privilege is defined. We argue that reporters privilege in Australia and Finland is a universal right because of two characteristics. First of all, privilege is technology neutral, which implies that all the means of public communication are included, and that, for example, the internet is a medium equal to more traditional media. Secondly, citizen journalists and even individual bloggers are considered to be equal to more established actors, such as professional journalists, publishers, and broadcasters. In Australia and Finland, reporters privilege applies to anyone providing a message to the public. The rest of the countries in this investigation (Germany, Sweden, the US, and Norway) form another, more heterogeneous group. What they have in common is that reporters privilege does not apply to anybody providing a message to the public, and is reserved for more established or institutionalized communicators. In Germany, the right to refuse to testify about sources is restricted to professional media actors, educators, and opinion builders. In Sweden, the confidentiality of the sources necessitates a certified platform with a responsible editor or moderator. In the US, federal shield law does not exist, but the Free Flow of Information Act, a bill introduced by the House of Representatives in September 2011, emphasizes the regularity and professional nature of the activity of the person in question. In Norway, the keywords are journalistic activity. The legislation grants the right to protect information sources only if the action can be defined as journalistic activity, and this applies to authors of books resembling journalism or writers on the internet if the site is, for example, part of an online paper. We call reporters privilege in Germany, Sweden, the US, and Norway a guild privilege, since all these countries base their guidelines on the involvement of more or less established, if not professional, activity. Germany seems to be closest to pure concept of guild privilege since the right to refuse to testify about sources requires a professional status. Sweden, Norway, and the bill introduced in the US seem to have adopted some features of universal right. 9

Theoretically, the idea of reporters privilege as a universal right reflects the spirit of the Habermasian ideals of the public sphere that is open and offers anyone free access to public debate. All participants in public debate are considered equal and no subject is to be excluded (Habermas 1989, 36-37). The ideals of Habermas can be seen as an alternative to the widely-held understanding of press freedom. According to McQuail (1994, 129-130), for example, press freedom under libertarian theory has in many contexts become identified with property rights, and has been primarily taken to mean the right to own and use means of publication without interference from government. Freedom to publish is, accordingly, seen as a property right. This theory has been frequently applied to protect owners of media organizations while paying less attention to media contents or citizens. In our view, reporters privilege as a guild privilege can be seen as an extension of this logic. Here, the emphasis is on institutionalized media activity and on the members of media organizations, rather than on free access and open public debate. The Internet, citizen journalists, and bloggers are challenging many features of traditional media and journalism. The debates and revisions of reporters privilege are part of this process. Many countries have either passed new laws recently (Australia, Finland) or are planning new legislation concerning confidential sources for the near future (Netherlands, Norway, the US). The role of the Internet and citizen journalism is a major concern in these undertakings, and pressures to expand the traditional, craft-oriented approach are mounting.

References

Bill Text 112th Congress H.R. 2932. Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/z?c112:H.R.2932. Sept. 14, 2011. Dalglish, L. (2010): Shield law should not be blocked over WikiLeaks: Anonymous information dumps are not journalism. The New Media & The Law. Summer 2010. Derrick, J.C. (2011): Federal shield law introduced in House once more. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Sept. 19. http://www.rcfp.org/node/98369 Drr, D. & Schwartmann, R.(2010): Medienrecht, 3. Ed. Hamburg. C.F. Mller Eduskunnan lakivaliokunnan mietint 9/1986 Hallituksen Esityksest eduskunnalle Esitutkintaa ja pakkokeinoja rikosasioissa koskevaksi lainsdnnksi Evidence Amendment (Journalists Privilege) Act 2011. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00021 Evidence Amendment (Journalist Privilege) Act 2011 No 18 http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/sessionalview/sessional/act/2011-18.pdf Evidence Amendment (Journalists Privilege) Bill 2010 No. 2 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010B00171 Fargo, A. (2011): Shielding Anonymous Speakers on US News Websites. Journal of Media Law 3 (1), 4960. 10

Habermas, J. (1989 [1962]): The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity. Lindahl, I (2009): Massemedienes kildevern. Fagbokforl. Massola (2011): Journo shield laws now cover bloggers and tweeters. The Australian march 21, 2011. McQuail, D. (1994): Mass Communications Theory. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. Merrit, C. (2011): Shield law now goes beyond the media to cover everyone. The Australian March 7, 2011. Norges offentlige utredninger 2011: 12, Ytringsfrihet og ansvar i en ny mediahverdag OShea, L. (2011): Shield Laws. Alternative Law Journal 36(2). http://www.altlj.org/news-andviews/downunderallover/duao-vol-36-2/124-shield-laws Eduskunnan lakivaliokunnan mietint 9/1986 Hallituksen Esityksest eduskunnalle Esitutkintaa ja pakkokeinoja rikosasioissa koskevaksi lainsdnnksi Tiilikka P. (2008): Journalistin sananvapaus. WSOYpro Tiilikka P. (2010): Sananvapaus, yksilnsuoja ja lhdesuoja Ruotsissa, Norjassa ja Alankomaissa sek Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukytnnss. Oikeusministerin julkaisu. Selvityksi ja ohjeita 54/2010.

Court praxis: BVerfGE 20, 162 Spiegel 5, 5.8.1966 Constitutional Court BVerfG, 1 BvR 538/06, 27.2.2007

11