Veteran journalist could face severe financial sanctions for refusing to give up source
A Journalist Faces Contempt of Court for Protecting a Source
A seasoned journalist may soon be held in contempt of court in a civil case in Washington, D.C. for refusing to disclose the source of stories she reported several years ago. These stories revolved around an FBI counterintelligence investigation into a Chinese-American scientist’s ties to the Chinese military.
CBS senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge, who worked at Fox News when she reported on the investigation, could face significant daily monetary sanctions if the U.S. district court finds her in civil contempt. The court hopes these penalties will compel her to reveal her source.
Plaintiff Seeks Steep Sanctions
The plaintiff in the case, Yanping Chen, is requesting that Herridge pay a “continuing, coercive” sanction of up to approximately $5,000 per day. Chen also wants Herridge to compensate her for all her legal fees. Chen alleges that Herridge was likely financially supported by Fox News and insists that Herridge should bear the penalties herself without any third-party assistance.
Chen’s attorney argues that without an effective sanction, Herridge will continue to defy the court’s order. Chen, who immigrated to the U.S. from China over 30 years ago, founded an online technology school in Northern Virginia. Herridge’s reporting primarily focused on the FBI’s inquiry into Chen and her school.
Judge Orders Herridge to Defend Herself
This week, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper instructed Herridge to submit a written argument by December 14 explaining why she should not be held in contempt and penalized according to Chen’s request. Herridge is being represented by attorney Pat Philbin, who served as deputy White House counsel during the Trump administration.
The Background of the Case
The case began five years ago when Chen sued the FBI, as well as the Departments of Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security. She accused them of collecting personal information about her during the FBI’s investigation and then leaking this confidential information to tarnish her reputation and livelihood, which she claims violated the Privacy Act.
After the DOJ decided not to prosecute Chen, Fox News, primarily through Herridge, released a series of exclusive reports in 2017. These reports included family photos seized during an FBI search of Chen’s home, private details about her immigration records, and an FBI interview with her daughter.
Unable to definitively identify the government leaker, Chen resorted to subpoenaing Herridge. A judge ordered Herridge to comply with the subpoena, which required her to reveal her source during a deposition.
During the deposition, Herridge refused to testify about the identity or intent of the source or sources who provided Chen’s protected records. Herridge expressed her respect for the court and its authority but invoked her First Amendment rights, stating that she must disobey the order to seek further judicial review.
Press Freedom Advocates Call for Stronger Protections
This case has raised concerns among press freedom advocates who are urging Congress to pass legislation that provides stronger protections for journalists and their sources. They argue that without these protections, sources will be less likely to come forward due to fears of being exposed.
Gabe Rottman, a project director with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, emphasized the need for a federal shield law to safeguard journalists from being forced to reveal their confidential sources. He stated that these protections are crucial for the free flow of information to the public.
Chen maintains that she has exhausted all other options to identify the leaker in her case and believes she has overcome Herridge’s First Amendment privilege.
In her quest for suggested sanctions against Herridge, Chen cited the Hatfill v. Mukasey case. In that case, a USA Today journalist faced contempt charges and was sanctioned for refusing to disclose a source. However, the contempt order was dropped after the plaintiff settled his Privacy Act claim with the government.
Click here to read more from the Washington Examiner.
How do journalistic privilege and First Amendment rights intersect in the case of leaked graphs and documents?
Graphs and documents leaked by anonymous sources. The stories detailed the FBI investigation into Chen’s alleged ties to the Chinese military and her school’s potential involvement in espionage activities.
Throughout the coverage, Herridge maintained that she had spoken with multiple sources who had access to classified information. However, she has repeatedly refused to disclose the identities of these sources, citing the need to protect their confidentiality and uphold the principles of journalistic integrity.
Journalistic Privilege and First Amendment Rights
The case raises important questions about journalistic privilege and the protection of sources. Journalists play a vital role in holding governments and institutions accountable by uncovering information that might otherwise remain hidden. This often involves relying on confidential sources who are willing to expose wrongdoing or provide insider information.
Recognizing the importance of this role, many legal systems have established protections for journalists, allowing them to keep the identities of their sources confidential. These protections are meant to ensure that journalists can fulfill their responsibilities without fear of reprisal or interference from law enforcement or other parties.
In the United States, First Amendment rights also grant journalists a certain level of protection. Courts have traditionally recognized a qualified privilege for journalists to maintain the anonymity of their sources, weighing the public’s right to know against the potential harm that might result from revealing a source’s identity.
Contempt of Court and the Balancing of Rights
In this case, the court faces the challenge of balancing Yanping Chen’s right to seek redress for alleged privacy violations with Catherine Herridge’s right to protect her sources and fulfill her journalistic duties. The court must weigh the potential harm caused by compelling Herridge to disclose her sources against the importance of allowing Chen to make her case and potentially recover damages.
While the court has the authority to hold Herridge in contempt and impose sanctions, it is essential to consider the wider implications of such a decision. Forcing journalists to reveal their sources can have a chilling effect on investigative reporting and undermine the public’s trust in the media. Journalists need to be able to rely on assurances of confidentiality to encourage whistleblowers and sources to come forward.
Closing Thoughts
This case highlights the ongoing tension between the public’s right to information and the need to protect journalistic sources. As the court deliberates on whether to hold Catherine Herridge in contempt, it is essential to consider the broader implications of such a decision. Upholding the principles of journalistic integrity and protecting the role of the free press should be fundamental priorities in any democracy.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...