We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.
Investigative reporter Catherine Herridge has been in an uphill battle over a contempt order that could land her behind bars for following journalistic standards.
In a showdown over press freedom, Herridge has refused to reveal a source for a report and a federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C. appeared unsympathetic on Monday to efforts to overturn the lower court ruling that she be held in contempt.
True
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2024
The underlying lawsuit was filed by Yanping Chen who was noted in one of Herridge’s reports and who claims her reputation was damaged as a result. Herridge, a former Fox News reporter, departed for CBS in 2019 and was let go by the network earlier this year as she covered the Hunter Biden laptop story.
According to Politico:
Herridge relied on one or more anonymous sources for several 2017 stories about potential national security risks related to a Virginia school that was founded by Chen and attended by many members of the U.S. military whose tuition was paid by taxpayers. Herridge published details about an FBI investigation into Chen, including photos of her in a People’s Liberation Army uniform.
Chen, who says leaks about the probe damaged her reputation, sued several federal agencies over the disclosures. As part of that lawsuit, she issued a subpoena to Herridge to try to force her to disclose her source. Herridge refused.
Following standard journalistic practice, Herridge would not divulge her source and faced daily fines and potential jail time. Monday’s three-judge panel consisted of Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee, Judge Harry Edwards, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, and Judge Michelle Childs, who was appointed by President Joe Biden. They reportedly were skeptical of arguments made by Herridge’s attorney, Patrick Philbin.
“It’s hard to take too seriously this sweeping language that the First Amendment protecting reporters’ ability to broadcast information that is unlawfully disclosed is like this hugely overarching value that has to prevail in all but the rarest of cases,” one of the judges said during Monday’s argument.
Herridge’s attorney pointed to precedent that “calls for a genuine balancing test and one that is heavily weighted to ensure that the First Amendment prevails in almost all cases.”
“What is this balancing test? … What does that mean?” Edwards asked.
“The court would have to look at what interest is being advanced,” Philbin said. “There is a systemic societal cost every time a reporter’s confidential source is disclosed because it chills the flow of information to the press and impairs the ability of the press to fulfill its function.”
“We’re now in this social media age where people hide behind Twitter, people hide behind other social media outlets. Who are you really protecting?” Childs asked.
The appellate court’s final decision is expected any day.
On social media, many came out to defend Herridge and sound the alarm over the potential chilling effect a ruling could have on the press.
I am hopeful AG nominee @mattgaetz and President-elect @realDonaldTrump take action to protect real journalists from this totalitarian assault pic.twitter.com/llHmx9afGn
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) November 19, 2024
What’s at least as remarkable as a journalist willing to risk personal ruin for their professional integrity is a court system apparently willing to sacrifice its legitimacy to punish the same.
— Probably Definitely not Stoya (@notstoya) November 18, 2024
She is a superb reporter- press should be free to protect sources. Are we a dictatorship or the USA?
— Mom65536 (@realMom65536) November 19, 2024
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.