Top Stories Headline News
	TRR Archive the Rue Morgue
	Editorials Editorials Columns Letters
	Arts & Leisure Reviews & Schedules
	Outdoors Fishing/Hunting Outdoor Magazine
	Sports Local Scores & Standings
	Food Recipes for culinary delights
	Bridges Bridges of the Upper Delaware
	Back Issues
	Search
	Links
	Commerce Sponsors
	Classified Ads Find it here
	Staff Pages
	Masthead
	Design Studio
	Subscriptions Get your copy delivered

Thursday, December 18, 1986, p. 1.
Related editorial -- Shielding freedom
Related news account -- Supervisors' charges against Startlight man dropped


---

Sources protected under Shield Law

By TOM RUE


HONESDALE - Both reporters who covered the November 17th Buckingham Township meeting were served with subpoenas to testify on behalf of the prosecution, against John E. Green Jr. of Starlight, who was charged with breaking up the meeting.

To substantiate what seemed to some as a politically motivated criminal charge, this reporter from The River Reporter and Kristen Ammerman-Scofield from The Wayne Independent, were ordered to appear. The subpoena also told us to bring "Any and all notes, tapes, etc., concerning the Buckingham Township regular meeting held on November 17, 1986.

Following testimony by township supervisors George Whitlock and George Taylor, I was called to the witness stand and was sworn in by district magistrate Bonnie Lewis.

Two days before the hearing, Buckingham Township solicitor Jeffrey Treat explained to me that the reason Kris and I had been subpoenaed was that, as reporters, we were better able to be "objective" and accurate in testifying about what took place, than the 40 others present at the meeting.

However, during courtroom questioning, Treat argued that I had been subpoenaed as a private individual, not as a reporter. My response was that, "As a private individual, I was not present. I saw nothing. I heard nothing.

After ascertaining my name and place of residence, Treat inquired whether I owned property in Buckingham Township. Addressing the magistrate, I indicated that not only did I view this question as irrelevant (she agreed), but that under the Pennsylvania Shield Law, my sources -- which included anything not contained in the printed account -- were protected from subpoena.

Reportedly, this was the first time that the state Shield Law had been invoked in a Wayne County court.

I read from a court opinion [In re. Taylor, 412 Pa., 32, 1963]: The word 'source' means not only the identity of the person, but likewise includes documents inanimate objects and all sources of information.

When Treat inquired what time I arrived at the meeting, and even if I had been wearing a watch, I replied that the answers were "not contained in the article" and were "protected by the Pennsylvania Shield Law."

According to an article by Bob Tomaine of the Scranton Times:


Rue refused to answer any questions -- despite instructions from the magistrate -- other than identifying himself.


After much wrangling during which Treat asked the magistrate to allow Rue to be questioned as an adverse witness, Rue said he would read the article he had written after covering the meeting, but 'beyond that, I'd like a determination by the court of common pleas.' He added that he attended the meeting as a reporter, not a private citizen.


Ms. Lewis ruled that Rue was protected under the Shield Law, but ordered him to answer questions based on the article.


But that approach soon failed and that portion of the hearing ended with the magistrate ordering the transcript of what had transpired stricken from the record.


Kris was then called to the stand. She told Treat she had arrived from the meeting "a little late" during the public comment period. However, this was the only information she released, asserting, "I have to invoke the Shield Law like Mr. Rue did.

She read a few paragraphs from her Wayne Independent article, and stood her ground.

It is my feeling, as well as that of judges and editors across this country -- that reporters have an ethical obligation to the public and to their profession, to protect their sources and journalistic independence, and not to yield to legal pressures or become a tool of politicians.

Retiring executive editor A.M. Rosenthal wrote in this past Sunday's New York Times Magazine of a statement by federal judge Harold R. Medina: "He let [us] have it for a tendency to allow judges to decide the conduct of the press. He said that editors should be editors, judges should be judges. He said newspaper people were too prone to accept a restriction there. I don't have his exact words but I remember his final bit of advice: "Fight like hell every inch of the way."

Fortunately, magistrate Lewis had the wisdom and foresight to accept the Pennsylvania Shield law's application and not find us in contempt of court. Indeed it would have been a poor reflection on the county to have had two local reporters jailed.