…pretty much gives the media the power to be secret…and all the brouhaha over subpeoning a judge and here, passed by the legislature, this law prohibits the three branches of govet from issuing subpeonas to the media…so in effect, a journalist has more power to run free than a judge…im starting to see a very hypocritical picture eminating from the judiciary committee…

Well, there are many things that are illegal, i.e. against the law, which are not crimes. For example, you cant put an addition on your house without a building permit and, perhaps, zoning permission. Thats illegal. But, thats not a crime. It is also illegal for a public agency to have a meeting without posting a notice of that meeting, but it is not a crime. So, what Justice Sullivan did was illegal, no question about that.

Regarding journalists. There is a big difference between the government and the private sector. Governments should be transparent, with some exceptions, like national security, criminal investigations, medical records, etc. Newspapers, TV stations and the like are no different from bakeries or charitable foundations or a multi national corporation. The are privately owned business and the general public does not have an absolute right to know everything they do. Regarding protections for journalists sources, you are correct, there are some protections. But, as you might also recall, journalists do end up in jail for refusing to reveal their sources. In the recent Scooter Libby affair, several journalists we sent to jail for refusing to testify. Others, like Tim Russert, agreed to testify and did reveal confidential sources and information. There are some guidelines about when the government can and cannot force journalists to testify. Last year, the Connecticut legislature wrote those into our state’s law, and that law is summarized below. As you can see, it is in fact possible to force a journalist to testify.

AN ACT CONCERNING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

SUMMARY: With some exceptions, this act prohibits judicial, executive, and legislative bodies with the power to issue subpoenas or compulsory process from compelling the news media to testify about, produce, or disclose (1) information obtained or received, whether in confidence or not, in gathering, receiving, or processing information for potential communication to the public; (2) the identity of the information’s source; or (3) information tending to identify the source.

The exception is for information (1) necessary to a pending criminal investigation or prosecution or a civil action; (2) not otherwise available; and (3) of interest to the public.

The act also provides that it cannot be construed to deny or infringe an accused’s U. S. and state constitutional rights, in a criminal prosecution, to use subpoenas to obtain witnesses in his behalf.

The act makes information and the identity of a source obtained in violation of the act inadmissible in any action, proceeding, or hearing before a judicial, executive, or legislative body.

The act also requires any person or entity seeking information that is not protected from disclosure to pay the news media’s actual copying costs in providing the information and prohibits using subpoenas to avoid paying.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2006

full summary:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/sum/2006SUM00140-R03HB-05212-SUM.htm

one more question rep lawlor if i mat: there has been a transparency crisi in our judicial dept, however, the fourth estate (media) is protected by law to keep their sources anonymous!!! isnt this very hypocritical and dangerous and fly in face of openness???

thanks for your time

BTW, on my blog I wrote about the fact that Sen LeBeau was the lone “no” vote on Judge Rogers’ appointment to the Appellate Court. Yet, I could not find any public comments on the reason for his vote. Do you know if he commented publicly on his “no” vote? I assume he will vote “no” on her nomination for CJ…..