Court Opinion

ID: 9733300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:02:05.933202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:39.053965
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
At the outset, I would reiterate that appellants’ refusal to obey the subpoenas ivas based solely on their interpretation of the Act of 1937 and hence the only question before us is the proper construction of that Act. We are not concerned with the relevancy of the information sought, the objectives of the District Attorney, or — as counsel for appellants quite properly conceded at oral argument — the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.
At common law, newspapers had no privilege to conceal from judicial inquiry either the source of their information or the information itself. In 1937, our legislature modified this body of law by providing that “no person . . . employed by any newspaper of general circulation . . . shall be required to disclose the source of any information procured or obtained by such per*45son. . . .” (Emphasis supplied). The purpose of this statute is to encourage the flow of news from persons who might otherwise fear the unfavorable publicity or retribution resulting from the revelation of their name as the source of the news story. This purpose is accomplished by permitting the newsman to conceal the name of the informant. In other words, it is the name of the informant and not the information itself which is protected. Once the name of the informant is revealed, the purpose and protection of the Act is terminated.
It is undisputed that John Fitzpatrick admitted to the Grand Jury that he made statements to employees of appellants. Fitzpatrick having been revealed as the informant, the Act of 1937 does not shield appellants from questioning with regard to the information given by Fitzpatrick and the contempt convictions should be affirmed.
The majority confuses “source of information” and “information.” While the purpose of the Act would lead me to limit the term “source” to animate as opposed to inanimate objects since only the former can be encouraged to reveal information,1 we are not concerned in this case with the revelation of the source of a news story. The source of the information was disclosed to the Grand Jury as John Fitzpatrick; what is now sought is the information given by Fitzpatrick. In reversing the contempt convictions, the majority rewrites the statute and permits appellants to conceal the information itself.
One searches the majority opinion in vain for any basis to support this perversion of the Act of 1937. The *46majority itself refers only to safeguarding the source of the information in • promoting newspapers as the “principal watch-dogs and protectors of honest, as well as good, Government.” This judicial expansion of the 1937 Act is all the more surprising in view of the fact that the vast majority of jurisdictions do not extend any privilege to newspapers. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, Atlanta Constitution, and St. Louis Post Dispatch, have all prospered and served their communities in the highest tradition, without any privilege to conceal sources of information — let alone the information itself — and some slight authority can be found to say that they do so even better than the Bulletin.
The dilemma of the majority’s position is illustrated by its discussion of the waiver of the privilege conferred by the Act of 1937. The majority finally concludes that only the newsman can decide whether or not to waive the privilege. Hence, according to the majority, the privilege is considerably broader than the lawyer-client, physician-patient, and priest-penitent privileges, all of which may be waived by the communicant. This “liberal” construction of the Act of 1937 results in a complete distortion of the legislative purpose of encouraging the flow of news; newsmen now have a license to prevent news from ever reaching the public — including that’which would expose corruption in government — although the informant’s identity is disclosed and he himself desires that the information be made public.
It is inconceivable to me how anyone who heard the able argument of the District Attorney or read his excellent brief could come to any other conclusion than to affirm the contempt convictions.
I dissent.

 Of the twelve states which have granted such a privilege to newspapers, only New Jersey has had occasion to judicially inquire into the scope of the privilege. In State v. Donovan, 129 N.J.L. 478, 30 A. 2d 421 (1943), both the majority and the dissenter agreed that “source” referred to the person who communicated the information.