Journalists withhold evidence all the time, often that's the only reason they can get evidence in the first place. For instance when they interview various forms of criminals.
Setting this precedent will mean that when covering riots in the future they will have to worry about whether or not the rioters will attempt to prevent them from acquiring footage, or even attempting to destroy footage that they have acquired. That's a chilling effect on the freedom of the press that will last decades.
There is also a potential chilling effect on peaceful protestors here, who now know that the police have yet another way of identifying them to retaliate. That's more of a problem in a place like Hong Kong than the US, but the constitution is there to prevent the US from being able to become like Hong Kong.
It's a different matter, yes, but as the parent poster noted, there's a compelling public interest argument in favor of withholding said evidence in order to preserve the ability of the press to do their job.
You can't have everything, so we must compromise. Unfortunately, in this case the judge ruled incorrectly, and freedom of the press will suffer as a result. If this ruling is allowed to stand, any future event a journalist covers where someone happens to commit a crime of opportunity will result in that journalist being at risk of harm should the perpetrators notice that they've been filmed. And that will make journalists think twice about covering such events.
The alternative is allowing criminals to get away with what they were filmed doing, which of course leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. But given the stakes, it's a sacrifice we must make. I'm of course talking about crimes-of-opportunity here (in this case, arson), not planned terrorist attacks or murder, where journalists would be at risk regardless.
> Recording who set a police car on fire and refusing to hand over the recording is a different matter.
That might be true if you know that Journalist X has an actual picture of the person lighting the car on fire and your are asking for that specific picture.
However, that is NOT the case here. The police are on a fishing expedition and are asking for pictures that "might" include the perpetrators.
Those pictures also might include a picture of someone the police might like to identify in order to exert some intimidation. The fact that the judge limited the scope is not terribly useful. Parallel construction is a thing.
Journalists aren't evil. They don't necessarily want criminals to get away with their crimes. Normally you would just politely ask the journalists to go over their pictures and turn over any that they think would be helpful.
However, after the police attacked journalists on camera, you can imagine that most journalists are more inclined to give the police the middle finger rather than cooperate.
Except in the US, there is parallel construction. So it could help with the dragnet for sure. Given that we at this point don't entirely trust the Police either, they could also just find people in the videos and harass them, right?
Lawyers have attorney-client privilege because courts have construed it essential for upholding the 6th Amendment's decree of right to counsel. If the press is seen as a surveillance apparatus for the police, you believe that has no implications on the First Amendment's freedom of press?
Journalists are allowed to keep their sources secret even if the government alleges that a crime has taken place. These rules are not as clear cut as youβre implying.
No such constitutional right exists at the federal level.
> The Supreme Court decided in a five to four decision that the press did not have a Constitutional right of protection from revealing confidential information in court. The court acknowledged, however, that the government must "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest."
Yep, and while Washington does have a shield law, the judge in this case has decided that it does not fully apply against this kind of subpoena:
> Lee said the news organizations were not protected by a Washington state shield law that under many circumstances prevents authorities from obtaining reportersβ unpublished materials.
