Court Opinion

ID: 9846647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:44:45.934223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:41.112947
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice.
This is an appeal from an order, judgment, and sentence of and for contempt resulting from a newsman’s refusal to disclose the identity of an informant. The existence and/or extent of a constitutionally based privilege from such disclosure is one of first impression in this jurisdiction.
Michael Caldero instituted an action in libel against the Tribune Publishing Company based on an article printed in the November 23, 1973, issue of the Lewiston Morning Tribune. The substance of the complaint was that the article contained “an unfair, false and malicious account” of an incident involving respondent while he was employed as an undercover agent for the Idaho Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.
The article purported to describe in detail an incident of August 27,1972, when Caldero and another agent were in a public park in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and in the process of an arrest of one Booth who had attempted to sell them narcotics. Booth was in the company of one Johnson and when an altercation ensued between Booth and the two agents, Johnson attempted to exit the scene in a vehicle. Although the precise facts are unclear and in dispute, it is at least agreed that Caldero fired three shots through the windshield of the Johnson-driven vehicle, two of which struck and injured Johnson.
The Tribune article in question appeared more than a year after the event under the by-line of Jay Shelledy and had as its focus the professional propriety of Caldero’s conduct. Caldero claimed that “he fired in self-defense; that Johnson tried to run him down.” In the article Caldero’s assertion was contrasted with statements from an eyewitness and general observations from the county prosecutor and the State Attorney General. The following statements of *289principal interest here were attributed to an undisclosed “police expert”, i. e.:
“One police expert, in an off-the-record interview with the Tribune, said Caldero’s justification for shooting didn’t add up. His reasoning was derived mainly from logistical facts:
“ — It was more than 90 minutes after sundown, so the lighting was too poor to see Caldero’s small wallet badge at a distance greater than a few yards.
“ — The distance between Caldero and Johnson’s car when Johnson pulled out of the parking stall was not sufficient for the vehicle to have picked up much speed, especially since the tires were not getting traction in the loose gravel. Even the slowest agent could have stepped out of the way, unless he was determined to throw himself in front of the car to physically stop it. (Witnesses estimate the speed of the car at less than 10 m. p. h. when the shots were fired.)
“Caldero didn’t have time to pull out his gun while running toward the car, dig out his wallet and show his badge, get out of the way of the car, replace his wallet and fire three shots with both hands on the gun as police are taught to fire. “The position of the bullet holes and angle at which Johnson was hit put Caldero adjacent to the left front tire when he fired. Therefore, the car had missed him and he was in no apparent danger and in good position to shoot the tires out if he felt he had to fire his gun.
“But Booth’s sale and Johnson’s accomplice’s role were not ‘shooting’ offenses. Caldero’s only justification would be to maintain his life was in grave danger. Otherwise, it would be a case of a young policeman who panicked, or who became carried away.”
Following the institution of the Caldero action, the Tribune filed an answer thereto and counsel for both parties proceeded to take depositions in the course of discovery. In that process Shelledy was deposed and questions were asked by counsel pertaining to the portion of the article on the opinion of the “police expert.” Shelledy directly refused to answer questions which would in his opinion either reveal or lead to the identity of the source of the information. Shelledy thereafter was added as a party to the action together with an amended claim of invasion of privacy.
Shelledy was the subject of a motion to compel answers and the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Both motions were subject to a hearing at the conclusion of which the court ordered disclosure by Shelledy and reserved ruling on the summary judgment motion. The court entered an order which directed Shelledy to appear and answer three questions:
“1. Who is the person identified as the ‘police expert’ in the subject article?
“2. What was the time and place of the conversation between the deponent and the police expert?
“3. What did the police expert say, and what information did the police expert relate to the deponent, during the conversation or any other?”
The court, in reserving ruling on defendants’ summary judgment motion, indulged in the following colloquy:
“MR. CLEMENTS (Defendants’ attorney): * * * [Assuming that you would satisfy yourself, that the source existed, that the source gave the information to Mr. Shelledy, by way of his opinion as reported * * * would you feel that in this case there would be actual malice?
“THE COURT: My feeling would be at that point — and was prior to today at least — that under those facts, I. would grant summary judgment. However, I must say because Mr. Shoemaker (plaintiff’s counsel) was so strong and positive on his reading of KTVB, I would want, before I make such a ruling, I’d go back and look at that again * *
Apparently, plaintiff’s counsel had argued to the district court that Taylor v. KTVB, 96 Idaho 202, 525 P.2d 984 (1974), holds that “malice” may be inferred from a publication which fails to distinguish mere opinion from fact. Parenthetically, we note that we do not read that case as so holding. *290See, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). The district court opined:
“I believe * * * every opportunity to get his case into court must be given to the plaintiff; and as a consequence of that, I believe that the matter of the identity of the police expert is material; it’s relevant. It goes, if necessary, to the heart or the crux of the plaintiff’s case, or may. On the other hand, that information, when explored, may disclose insufficient information to support the plaintiff’s case as against a Motion for Summary Judgment that * * * could be ruled upon if I reserve judgment on your Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Tr. 4.)
Shelledy was again deposed and with respect to questions two and three of the court order, he indicated that the conversation took place by telephone approximately ten days prior to publication of the article. He explained to his anonymous source the circumstances surrounding the shooting incident as they had been revealed by his investigation and the anonymous source opined that under those circumstances in retrospect, Caldero’s life was not in danger at the time of the shooting. Collateral questions which had been put to the appellant were rejected by the district court as being beyond the scope of his order.
Upon being asked the identity of the police expert, Shelledy read a statement declaring his refusal to answer was based upon the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and his professional code of ethics. Whereupon after being advised of the consequence of his conduct, he was judged in contempt and ordered incarcerated for a period of 30 days. It was ordered that thereafter he would then be re-examined as to the identity and source of his information. Upon order, the execution of that judgment has been stayed pending this appeal.
We note at the beginning of our analysis: “In 1958, a news gatherer asserted for the first time that the First Amendment exempted confidential information from public disclosure pursuant to a subpoena issued in a civil suit, * * *.” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, at 685, 92 S.Ct. 2646 at 2659, 33 L.Ed.2d 626.
In a general context Idaho’s statutory scheme contemplates:
“All persons, without exception, otherwise than is specified at the next two sections, who, having organs of sense, can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.” I.C. § 9-201.
“A witness, served with a subpoena, must attend at the time appointed, with any papers under his control, required by the subpoena, and answer all pertinent and legal questions, and, unless sooner discharged, must remain until the testimony is closed.” I.C. § 9-1301.
I.C. § 9-202 proscribes testimony from persons who are of unsound mind, under ten years of age and certain persons seeking to testify as to communications occurring before the death of a deceased person.
I.C. § 9-203 provides:
“There are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate; therefore, a person can not be examined as a witness in the following cases: * * *
Thereafter are proscribed certain communications between husband and wife, attorney and client, clergyman or priest and confessor, physician-patient, communications to a public officer under certain circumstances, counselor-student, certain communications between parent and child. We note that such statutory scheme has been considered and amended by our legislature as recently as 1972.
It is clear that appellant here falls within the clear requirement that he appear and testify and that his asserted privilege is not recognized nor is he excused from testifying under our statutes. It is not necessary and we do not examine any question as to conflict between any future rule of this Court and a statutory privilege. See, R.E.W. Construction Co. v. District Court of Third Ju*291dicial Dist., 88 Idaho 426, 400 P.2d 390 (1965).
The general theory of the law and of the commentators has been that new testimonial privileges are disfavored since they obstruct the search for the truth. Wigmore has condemned the privileges as being derogations from the positive general rule that everyone is obliged to testify when properly summoned, and that privileges are obstacles to the administration of justice. 8 Wig-more, On Evidence, § 2192 (McNaughton’s revision 1961). See also, McCormick, Evidence, 159 (2d ed. 1972). As stated in the preface to the American Law Institute’s Model Code of Evidence, page 7: “Such a privilege suppresses valuable evidence to which the trier of the fact is competent to give its proper weight.” To paraphrase Learned Hand in McMann v. Securities and Exchange Comm., 87 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1937), we are not faced with one who is a client, a penitent, a patient or a spouse and since testimonial privileges are based upon specified confidential relationships, nobody by contract, express or implied, can abridge public duties.
A number of states provide newsmen a statutory privilege of varying nature,1 but none has been provided in Idaho. Although often introduced, no such privilege has been provided by a federal statute.
We come then to appellant’s major contention that he cannot be compelled to disclose the information sought here because of the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. It is argued that the disclosure of information acquired by a newsman from a confidential source would have a “chilling effect” on the ability of newsmen to utilize confidential sources and thus inhibit the media’s ability to gather news and inform the public, all in violation of the First Amendment guaranty.
In 1958 the entertainer Judy Garland brought an action against Columbia Broadcasting System. Garland v. Torre, 259 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. den. 358 U.S. 910, 79 S.Ct. 237, 3 L.Ed.2d 231. There, as here, plaintiff alleged false and defamatory statements published in newspapers. There, as here, during pretrial discovery proceedings Torre refused to divulge the name of a “network executive” to which the publication had referred as the source of certain statements. The witness refused to divulge, was held in contempt and the appeal followed. The opinion of that court was delivered by Potter Stewart, then sitting as a circuit judge. The argument was made therein, first that a newsman has an absolute privilege against disclosure of confidential sources which is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and secondly, that at least in certain circumstances a confidential news source is protected by a qualified privilege. We read the opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart as rejecting both alternatives. As he stated:
“Freedom of the press, hard won over the centuries by men of courage, is basic to a free society. But basic too are courts of justice, armed with the power to discover truth. The concept that it is the duty of a witness to testify in a court of law has roots fully as deep in our history as does the guarantee of a free press.
“It would be a needless exercise in pedantry to review here the historic development of that duty. Suffice it to state that at the foundation of the Republic the obligation of a witness to testify and *292the correlative right of a litigant to enlist judicial compulsion of testimony were recognized as incidents of judicial power of the United States, [citations omitted] Whether or not the power to invoke this judicial power be considered an element of Fifth Amendment due process, its essentiality to the fabric of our society is beyond controversy. As Chief Justice Hughes put it: ‘One of the duties which the citizen owes to his government is to support the administration of justice by attending its courts and giving his testimony whenever he is properly summoned.’
“If an additional First Amendment liberty — the freedom of the press — is here involved, we do not hesitate to conclude that it too must give place under the constitution to a paramount public interest in the fair administration of justice. ‘The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all others, and lies at the foundation of orderly government.’ ”
Although certiorari was denied, 358 U.S. 910, 79 S.Ct. 237, 3 L.Ed.2d 231, and we are not to speculate thereon, nevertheless, we deem it significant that Garland v. Torre was cited in the opinion of Mr. Justice White in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972), but is strangely missing in the dissent authored by Mr. Justice Stewart.
Except as noted above we find ourselves without guidance in the United States Supreme Court decisions in cases involving a newsman’s refusal to divulge confidential informants in the course of civil litigation. Both parties hereto rely upon and cite heavily from Branzburg v. Hayes, supra. That decision involved a trilogy of cases (Pappas, Caldwell and Branzburg), all of which were cast in the context of the refusal of newsmen to divulge sources of confidential information and/or information received under a confidential agreement when subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury.
There, as here, it was argued that the First Amendment insulated completely or to a limited degree a newsman divulging confidential sources or confidential information. In the lower courts the assertion of the petitioners, Branzburg and Pappas, were rejected and that rejection of the privilege was upheld on appeal. In the third case, Caldwell (Caldwell v. United States, 434 F.2d 1081), the Ninth Circuit had upheld the petitioner’s claim of privilege holding that absent some special showing of necessity he was insulated from disclosure on the basis of the First Amendment. In Caldwell, that decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed.
While as noted above, Branzburg was cast in the criminal area and testimony before a grand jury, nevertheless, we deem certain language therein to be of guidance. It was stated by Mr. Justice White:
“Until now the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the federal constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do.
******
“We are admonished that refusal to provide a First Amendment reporter’s privilege will undermine the freedom of the press to collect and disseminate news. But this is not the lesson history teaches us. As noted previously, the common law recognized no such privilege, and the constitutional argument was not even asserted until 1958. From the beginnings of our country the press has operated without constitutional protection for press informants, and the press has flourished. The existing constitutional rules have not been a serious obstacle to either the development or retention of confidential news sources by the press. * * * If newsmen’s confidential sources are as sensitive as they are claimed to be, the prospect of being unmasked whenever a judge determines the situation justifies *293it, is hardly a satisfactory solution to the problem. For them, it would appear that only an absolute privilege would suffice. “We are unwilling to embark the judiciary on a long and difficult journey to such an uncertain destination. The administration of a constitutional newsman’s privilege would present practical and conceptual difficulties of a high order. Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photo-composition methods.” 408 U.S. at 689-690, 698-699, 702-704, 92 S.Ct. at 2661, 2665, 2667-2668.
Four of the Justices, Stewart, Brennan, Marshall and Douglas dissented. Mr. Justice Powell filed a special concurring opinion and it is argued that such detracts from the conclusiveness of the plurality opinion. We do not agree. Mr. Justice Powell concurred in the opinion of the Court written by Mr. Justice White and while the Powell special concurring opinion is brief and somewhat enigmatic, we read it only to state that if an “investigation is not being conducted in good faith [the newsman] is not without remedy.”
Although in different contexts, the United States Supreme Court has prior to Branzburg used strong and compelling language regarding asserted derogations of the testimonial privilege. In United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 70 S.Ct. 724, 94 L.Ed. 884 (1950), the Court stated:
“On the other hand, persons summoned as witnesses by competent authority have certain minimum duties and obligations which are necessary concessions to the public interest in the orderly operation of legislative and judicial machinery. A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures, would be a nullity. We have often iterated the importance of this public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the government is bound to perform when properly summoned.”
In Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 52 S.Ct. 252, 76 L.Ed. 375 (1932), the Court stated:
“It is also beyond controversy that one of the duties the citizen owes to his government is to support the administration of justice by attending its courts and giving his testimony whenever he is properly summoned.”
As recently as 1974 the Court handed down its historic decision in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039, in which the Court affirmed the “ancient proposition of law” stated in Blaekmer, Bryan and Branzburg “that ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence,’ except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory privilege, * * The Court also stated:
“The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. * * * The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. To insure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense. * * * Whatever their origins, these exceptions to the demand for every man’s evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.”
Also in 1974 in Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), the Court said:
“The Court there [Branzburg] could ‘perceive no basis for holding that the public *294interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings [was] insufficient to override the consequential, but uncertain, burden on news gathering that is said to result from insisting that reporters like other citizens, respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.’ ” 417 U.S. at 833, 94 S.Ct. at 2809.
Therefore our reading of Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, is to the effect that no newsman’s privilege against disclosure of confidential sources founded on the First Amendment exists in an absolute or qualified version. The only restrictions against compelled disclosure appear to be in those cases where it is demonstrably intended to unnecessarily harass members of the news media on a broad scale by means having an unnecessary impact on protected rights of speech, press or association.
The appellant commends to our attention the decisions of United States Courts of Appeals, Baker v. F & F Investment, 470 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1972) cert. denied, 411 U.S. 966, 93 S.Ct. 2147, 36 L.Ed.2d 686; and Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986 (8th Cir. 1972) cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1125, 93 S.Ct. 939, 35 L.Ed.2d 257. We conclude that each may be distinguished from the present case in several respects. Baker involved an appeal from a trial court’s interlocutory refusal to compel a journalist to disclose the identity of a source. On appeal the Court noted that the journalist was not a party to the underlying action and that there was no showing that the identity of the source was necessary to plaintiff’s case. The Court there emphasized that a ruling on a discovery motion is discretionary and therefore would only be reviewed on a showing of abuse of discretion. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, although that action was in federal court, the laws of two states were relevant. The action was pending in the federal court for Illinois and the discovery motion was heard in the federal court for New York. Both Illinois and New York had enacted legislation protecting journalists from forced disclosure of their sources. N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79-H (McKinney’s 1976); Ch. 51 Ill.Rev.Stat. § 111 et seq. (1971).
Cervantes was a diversity case in the federal court brought for libel against a national magazine. The reporter who wrote the allegedly libelous material was deposed at pre-trial but refused to reveal the identity of confidential informants within the United States Department of Justice. Prior to the time of reaching the merits of the discovery motion, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment. The Court on appeal concluded that the refusal to require disclosure was not reversible error and affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment rendered against plaintiff. In passing, the Court in Cervantes acknowledged that the weight of decisional authority holds that newsmen do not have a First Amendment privilege to withhold news sources. 464 F.2d at 992. As was stated in Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Superior Court, 364 Mass. 317, 303 N.E.2d 847 (1973):
“We refuse to extrapolate from the Cervantes decision a requirement that, because in libel actions under federal procedures it is possible to obtain a judgment on the merits before the discovery issue is ruled on, therefore in libel actions in our courts discovery of a newsman’s sources cannot be ordered without a preliminary evaluation of the probable results on the merits.” 303 N.E.2d at 851.
We move then to consideration of our own Constitution, Art. I, § 9, guaranteeing the freedom of speech and press. We do so in view of the language of Branzburg stating:
“It goes without saying, of course, that we are powerless to bar state courts from responding in their own way and construing their own constitutions so as to recognize a newsman’s privilege either qualified or absolute.”
Art. I, § 9, of our Constitution provides:
“Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”
*295That provision of our Constitution has seldom been considered by this Court since McDougall v. Sheridan, 23 Idaho 191, 128 P. 954 (1913), which although of historical interest, is not relevant to the case at bar. None of our recent decisions in the area of freedom of press have construed our state constitutional provisions.
As herein stated, a statutory privilege against disclosure has been enacted in some jurisdictions. Those courts of our sister states who, at least at the time of their decision, did not have such a statutory privilege are somewhat divided as to judicial creation of the privilege. However, the majority have refused to create a court mandated privilege.
In State v. Buchanan, 250 Or. 244, 436 P.2d 729 (1968), the court commented on an asserted privilege against a newsman’s disclosure of confidential sources:
“In the decisions dealing with reporter’s asserted right to refuse to disclose his source of information, the courts have held that rights of privacy, freedom of association, and ethical convictions are subordinate to the duty of every citizen to testify in court.
“Indeed it would be difficult to rationalize a rule that would create special constitutional rights for those possessing credentials as news gatherers which would not conflict with the equal privileges and equal protection concepts also found in the constitution. Freedom of the press is a right which belongs to the public; it is not the private preserve of those who possess the implements of publishing
“Apart from the definitional difficulties in attempting to give constitutional status to a privilege for qualified news gatherers which presumably would be denied to less favored classes, there is another objection to discrimination between news gatherers and other persons. Such a practice would be potentially destructive of the very freedom that is sought to be preserved by this appeal. After the lessons of colonial times, the First Amendment required the federal government to resist the normal temptation of rulers to regulate, license or otherwise pass upon the credentials of those claiming to be authors and publishers. An invitation to the government to grant a special privilege to special class of ‘news gatherers’ necessarily draws after it an invitation to the government to define the membership of that class. We doubt that all news writers would want the government to pass on the qualifications of those seeking to enter their field * * *.
“Assuming that legislators are free to experiment with such definitions, it would be dangerous business for courts, asserting constitutional grounds, to extend to an employee of a ‘respectable’ newspaper a privilege which would be denied to an employee of a disreputable newspaper; or to an episotic pamphleteer; or to a freelance writer seeking a story to sell on the open market; or, indeed, to a shaggy nonconformist who wishes only to write out his message and nail it to a tree. If the claimed privilege is to be found in the constitution, its benefits cannot be limited to those whose credentials, may, from time to time, satisfy the government.” 436 P.2d at 731-732.
In 1961 in the matter of In re Goodfader’s Appeal, 45 Haw. 317, 367 P.2d 472, the Hawaii Supreme Court stated:
“In this jurisdiction no statutory privilege against disclosure is extended to newsmen. Consistently with the foregoing general rule, therefore, no such privilege should be judicially recognized. However, it is stated that this is a vitally important case to the new state of Hawaii and as the issue presented is a matter of first impression, we are urged to pioneer in the field and take advantage of the ‘opportunity to establish unequivocally that a right of a free press guaranteed by the constitution of our state shall be given as broad a scope as is necessary to insure a truly free press.’ Also, it is said: ‘To accomplish this objective confidential sources of information must be held to be immune from compulsory dis*296closure and appellant’s silence a constitutionally protected right.’ Although urged primarily from a constitutional standpoint, alternately it is argued that the same result is necessary from a modernistic public policy standpoint. What, in effect, is actually asked of us is to create an evidentiary privilege in favor of newsmen. We are not favorably disposed to the invitation.”
In re Pappas, 358 Mass. 604, 266 N.E.2d 297 (1971), was one of the three cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Branzburg. In Branzburg the Pappas decision was affirmed and characterized as stating the general law. In the Pappas opinion is substantial discussion relative to the asserted privilege of newsmen from disclosure of confidential sources and the cases and commentators of significance to the question.
In 1973 the Massachusetts court in Dow Jones & Co., Inc v. Superior Court, 364 Mass. 317, 303 N.E.2d 847, had for consideration the application of its holding in Pap-pas to a civil suit for libel the facts of which are substantially similar to those of the case at bar. Discussed and distinguished were Baker v. F & F Investment, supra, and Cervantes v. Time, Inc., supra. The court discussed its previous Pappas decision and the acceptance of its rationale by the United States Supreme Court in Branzburg, and then held that Pappas represented the correct view and should be extended to civil cases in the libel field.
While admittedly United States v. Liddy, 354 F.Supp. 208 (D.C.1972), was in the context of a criminal prosecution at trial, Judge Sirica observed therein:
“There can be little dispute that the common law recognized no privilege which would support a newspaper or reporter in refusing, upon proper demand, to disclose information received in confidence. Such a privilege, if it exists, must grow out of the first amendment free press guarantee. Quite appropriately, in this court’s view, the Supreme Court has recognized as component parts of that guarantee the freedom to publish without prior governmental approval, a right of circulation, freedom to distribute literature, and the right to receive printed matter. And most recently with the Supreme Court’s decision of Branzburg it may be said that a right to gather news has been explicitly acknowledged. While acknowledging this corollary right, however, the court rejected the claim that such a right implies a privilege to protect the identity of news sources. After citing numerous cases in which restrictions on the right to gather news have been sustained the court classified the requirement to answer subpoenas and disclose sources as another instance of permissible restriction. The majority noted that ‘the evidence fails to demonstrate that there would be significant constriction of the flow of news to the public if this court reaffirms the prior common law and constitutional rule regarding the testimonial obligation of newsmen.’ ”
In Carey v. Hume, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 492 F.2d 631 (1974) that court was faced with a factual pattern substantially similar to the case at bar. The action was one in libel and the newspaper story reflected that part of the information supplied therein was from an undisclosed source. In the course of the pre-trial discovery upon being asked for disclosure of those sources the information was denied on the basis of an asserted privilege founded in the First Amendment. That court reviewed Branzburg, supra; Garland v. Torre, supra; Dow Jones & Co. v. Superior Court, supra. The court stated:
“Even if he [plaintiff] did prove that the statements were false, Sullivan also requires a showing of malice or reckless disregard of truth. That further step might be achieved by proof that appellant [newsman] in fact had no reliable sources, that he misrepresented the reports of his sources, or the reliance upon those particular sources was reckless.
“Knowledge of the identity of the alleged sources would logically be an initial element in the proof of any such circumstances. Although it might be possible to *297submit the question of malice to the jury simply on the basis of conflicting allegations of the parties, that procedure would seem to provide the plaintiff little prospect of success in view of his heavy burden of proof. Consequently, we find that the identity of appellant’s sources is critical to appellee’s claim.
******
“What we have decided — and all that we have decided — is that the district court cannot, on the limited record before us, be said to have abused the discretion invested in it to grant or to deny a motion to compel discovery under Rule 37. We have rejected the only contention made to us by appellant, and that was the preBranzburg claim that there either is, or should be, an absolute First Amendment barrier to the compelled disclosure by a newsman of his confidential sources under any circumstances. That was not, in our view, the law before Branzburg, and it is certainly not the law after, in either civil or criminal proceedings.”
There are to be sure cases wherein courts have differed from those cited above. See, State v. Knops, 49 Wis.2d 647, 183 N.W.2d 93 (1971); Loadholtz v. Fields, 389 F.Supp. 1299 (D.C.M.D.Fla.1975); Brown v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 755, 204 S.E.2d 429 (1974); State v. St. Peter, 132 Vt. 266, 315 A.2d 254 (1974); Morgan v. State, 337 So.2d 951 (Fla.1976). However, at best those decisions discuss the privilege as being qualified.
Of somewhat marginal interest in the case at bar are those cases arising in jurisdictions wherein exist legislatively created statutory privilege. See, Re Bridge, 120 N.J.Super. 460, 295 A.2d 3 (1972). There the court followed Branzburg in refusing to create a First Amendment privilege and although the New Jersey evidence rule extends privilege to newspapermen to refuse to disclose the source of any information published in the newspaper, such only protects the source and not the information itself, cert. denied, Bridge v. United States, 410 U.S. 991, 93 S.Ct. 1500, 36 L.Ed.2d 189. See also, Lightman v. State, 15 Md.App. 713, 294 A.2d 149, aff’d, 266 Md. 550, 295 A.2d 212, cert. denied 411 U.S. 951, 93 S.Ct. 1922, 36 L.Ed.2d 414; People v. Dan, 41 A.D.2d 687, 342 N.Y.S.2d 731, appeal dismissed, 32 N.Y.2d 764, 344 N.Y.S.2d 955, 298 N.E.2d 118; People v. Wolf, 39 A.D.2d 864, 333 N.Y.S.2d 299. See also Hestand v. State, 257 Ind. 191, 273 N.E.2d 282 (1971).
One of the more recent developments in an adjunct area is the case of Farr v. Pitchess, 522 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1975). For earlier state court history see Farr v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.3d 60, 99 Cal.Rptr. 342, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1011, 93 S.Ct. 430, 34 L.Ed.2d 305 and Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 111 Cal.Rptr. 649. In Pitchess, the Court stated:
“This appeal presents the no-longer novel question regarding the extent of protection afforded by the First Amendment ‘free press’ provision to a newspaper reporter who resists judicially ordered disclosure of his news sources. * * *
The Branzburg Court dealt precisely with the first amendment free press provision as it affected testimony sought to be produced before a grand jury. However, the opinion appears to teach [sic] broadly enough to be applied to other civil or criminal judicial proceedings as well. Recent cases have so held.” [citing Carey v. Hume, supra, and U. S. v. Liddy, supra.]
Commentary in this relatively new field of constitutionally based privilege from disclosure is voluminous.2 We have reviewed *298them but as the tentmaker “came out by the same door where in [we] went” and no wiser. We are left to our own devices and what wisdom we may garner from authorities which may be persuasive although not binding.
We find agreement with the reasoning and rationale contained in the opinions of the Massachusetts and Oregon courts. We are also persuaded that the United States Supreme Court would, if presented the opportunity, uphold the view of the Massachusetts court as it has once already in Pappas.
The underlying rationale of the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press is clear. In a society so organized as ours, the public must know the truth in order to make value judgments, not the least of which regard its government and officialdom. The only reliable source of that truth is a “press” (which is to say everyone — pamphleteers, nonconformists, undergrounders) which is free to publish that truth without government censorship. We cannot accept the premise that the public’s right to know the truth is somehow enhanced by prohibiting the disclosure of truth in the courts of the public.
The order, judgment and sentence of the trial court are affirmed.
McFADDEN, C. J., and SCOGGIN, District Judge (Ret.), concur.

. Of interest is the Indiana statute which was amended in 1973 to eliminate the previous requirement that to qualify for the privilege a journalist must be employed by a newspaper having a certain circulation and a five-year longevity. Ind.Stat.Ann. § 34-3-5-1 (Supp. 1973). See also, Ala.Code tit. 7, § 370 (1960); Alaska Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 09.25.150-.220 (1973); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-2237 (Supp. 1976); Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43-917 (1964); Cal. Evid.Code § 1070 (West Supp.1976); Ill.Ann. Stat. ch. 51, § 111 (Supp. 1972); Ky.Rev.Stat. § 421.100 (1972); La.Rev.Stat. tit. 45, §§ 1451-1454 (Supp. 1972); Md.Ann.Code art. 35, § 2 (1965); Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 767-5a (1968); Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. tit. 93, §§ 601 — 1— 602-2 (1964); Nev.Rev.Stat. tit. 4, § 49-275 (1975); N.J.Stat.Ann. § 2A:84A-21 (1976); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 20-1-12.1 (Supp.1975); N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79-h (McKinney 1976); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 2739.04, 2739.12 (1971); Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 28, § 330 (Supp.1976).

. Pre-Branzburg:
Guest & Stanzler, The Constitutional Argument for Newsmen Concealing Their Sources, 64 N.W.L.Rev. 18 (1969); Blasi, The Newsmen’s Privilege: An Empirical Study, 70 Mich.L.Rev. 229 (1971); Nelson, The Newsmen’s Privilege Against Disclosure of Confidential Sources and Information, 24 Vand.L.Rev. 667 (1971); Note, Reporters and Their Sources: The Constitutional Right to a Confidential Relationship, 80 Yale L.J. 317 (1970); Note: The Newsmen’s Privilege: Government Investigations, Criminal Prosecutions and Private Litigation, 58 Cal.L. Rev. 1198 (1970).

*298
Post-Branzburg:

Note, 51 N.Caro.L.Rev. 562; Comment, A Need for Statutory Protection of News Sources, 61 Ky.L.J. 551; Comment, Journalists & Their Sources, 58 Iowa L.Rev. 618; Note, 18 Villanova L.Rev. 288; Note, 41 Fordham L.Rev. 1024; Comment, Newsman’s Privilege, 25 U.Fla.L. Rev. 381; Comment, Newsman’s Privilege Statutes, 49 Notre Dame Lawyer 150; Comment, Ervin, In Pursuit of a Press Privilege, 11 Harv.J. on Legis. 233; Comment, The Journalist’s Prerogative of Non-Disclosure, 20 Loyola L.Rev. 120; Comment, Subpoenas to Compel Disclosure of Confidential Information, 49 Los Angeles Bar Bull. 133; Comment, Journalists in the Courts, 8 U.San Francisco L.Rev. 644; Note, 9 U.Richmond L.Rev. 171; Note, Newsman’s Source Privilege, 26 U.Fla.L.Rev. 453; Note, Dixon, Newsman’s Privilege by Federal Legislation, 1 Hastings Const.Law Q. 39; Note, 53 Bost.U.L.Rev. 497; Note, Newsman’s Privilege Two Years After Branzburg, 49 Tulane L.Rev. 417; Note, Grodde, The Developing Qualified Privilege for Newsmen, 26 Hastings L.J. 709; Note, 16 Santa Clara L.Rev. 379; Note, Murphy, Journalist’s Privilege, 15 Texas L.Rev. 829.