http://www.theharbinger.co.za/wordpress Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:52:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://www.theharbinger.co.za/wordpress/2010/01/25/i-got-married-because-of-a-section-205-subpoena/#comment-252695 Anton Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:40:27 +0000 http://www.theharbinger.co.za/wordpress/?p=640#comment-252695 I was unaware that the Justice Department had told Sanef the law would not change. You seem to want a journalist to be subpoena'ed to test the law, but surely it would be preferable to have the law or an agreement set out an approach that avoided this heavy-handed treatement and which created avenues for these things to be sorted out before they got to court, wherever possible. A shield law would be best, but a second choice would be to explore other channels of cooperation short of putting the journalist in the dock. I am not sure why you don't think it is a good thing to have the law recognise and protect journalists in dealing with confidential sources. I was unaware that the Justice Department had told Sanef the law would not change.
You seem to want a journalist to be subpoena’ed to test the law, but surely it would be preferable to have the law or an agreement set out an approach that avoided this heavy-handed treatement and which created avenues for these things to be sorted out before they got to court, wherever possible. A shield law would be best, but a second choice would be to explore other channels of cooperation short of putting the journalist in the dock. I am not sure why you don’t think it is a good thing to have the law recognise and protect journalists in dealing with confidential sources.

]]> http://www.theharbinger.co.za/wordpress/2010/01/25/i-got-married-because-of-a-section-205-subpoena/#comment-252694 Robert Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:00:04 +0000 http://www.theharbinger.co.za/wordpress/?p=640#comment-252694 Anton, while I agree that the subpoena was ill-advised and that journalists should honour confidentiality of sources, just one point for clarification: The memorandum of understanding between the Justice Minister and Sanef was not to the effect that "that this law would be changed and until then it would be used with circumspection and consultation". It was an interim measure, pending discussion about the possibility of changing the law. Those discussions took place, but last year the Justice Department notified Sanef that the law would not be changed (and the Constitutional Court has also ruled in favour of Section 205). The continued vailidity of the memorandum is, therefore, unclear. My view is that a law change isn't necessary, and that journalists should rely on a constitution-based "just excuse" justification (see http://tinyurl.com/yexq7gy , which can only be established by precedent - so the sooner a Section 205 case goes to court, the better! Anton, while I agree that the subpoena was ill-advised and that journalists should honour confidentiality of sources, just one point for clarification: The memorandum of understanding between the Justice Minister and Sanef was not to the effect that “that this law would be changed and until then it would be used with circumspection and consultation”. It was an interim measure, pending discussion about the possibility of changing the law. Those discussions took place, but last year the Justice Department notified Sanef that the law would not be changed (and the Constitutional Court has also ruled in favour of Section 205). The continued vailidity of the memorandum is, therefore, unclear. My view is that a law change isn’t necessary, and that journalists should rely on a constitution-based “just excuse” justification (see http://tinyurl.com/yexq7gy
, which can only be established by precedent - so the sooner a Section 205 case goes to court, the better!

]]>