Canada: Supreme Court rules today in 'critically important' press freedom case - PressFrom - Canada

CanadaSupreme Court rules today in 'critically important' press freedom case

12:20  30 november  2018
12:20  30 november  2018 Source:

Protest Saturday for Quebecer in Cuban limbo

Protest Saturday for Quebecer in Cuban limbo Protest Saturday for Quebecer in Cuban limbo

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Trump to prohibit the entry of some people into the United States from countries he deems dangerous, but the justices imposed strict limits on Mr. Trump’s travel ban while they examine the scope of presidential power

Carpenter v United States has rightly prompted concerns over surveillance. But it could also have drastic implications for personal freedom in the digital age.

Supreme Court rules today in 'critically important' press freedom case © Colin Perkel/Canadian Press Vice Media reporter Ben Makuch is challenging an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that ordered him to hand over background materials he used for stories on an accused terrorist to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Canada's top court will release a decision this morning in a high-profile case that pits journalists' ability to protect their sources against police officers' ability to conduct investigations.

Vice Media reporter Ben Makuch is challenging an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that ordered him to hand over to the RCMP the background materials he used for stories on an accused terrorist.

Taxes may be a bigger part of online shopping this season

Taxes may be a bigger part of online shopping this season Shoppers heading online to purchase holiday gifts will find they're being charged sales tax at some websites where they weren't before. The reason: the Supreme Court. A June ruling gave states the go-ahead to require more companies to collect sales tax on online purchases. Now, more than two dozen have moved to take advantage of the ruling, many ahead of the busy holiday shopping season. "Will your shopping bill look any different? ... The answer right now is it depends," said Jason Brewer, a spokesman for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents more than 70 major retailers.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is slated to hear oral argument in the famed Masterpiece Cakeshop case . The case is a seminal one for religious liberty. The case revolves around a man named Jack Phillips. Jack is a baker. He makes and decorates cakes. He has a simple rule : he’ll sell anyone a cake.

The Supreme Court of the United States (also referred to by the acronym SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States.

The case dates back to 2014, when Makuch wrote three stories about Farah Mohamed Shirdon, a former Calgary resident, and his ties to the Islamic State.

Intrigued by the idea of a young man leaving a Canadian city to fight for a terrorist group, Makuch embedded himself in Shirdon's online world and eventually convinced him to explain some of ISIS's online recruiting and radicalizing strategies.

In 2015, the RCMP obtained an 'information to obtain order' (ITO) compelling Vice and Makuch to hand over all his communications with Shirdon — who reportedly has been killed since — including his KIK Messenger chats, paper printouts, screen captures and any other computer records.

Makuch brought an application forward to quash the RCMP's production order, but it was dismissed — a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Reporter must hand notes to RCMP, court rules

Reporter must hand notes to RCMP, court rules OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada says a reporter must give the RCMP material he gathered for stories about an accused terrorist. The 9-0 decision is likely to be seen as a defeat for media that could leave them vulnerable to serving as investigative arms of the police. In 2014, Vice Media reporter Ben Makuch wrote three articles about the involvement of Farah Shirdon, formerly of Calgary, with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Shirdon had left Canada for Turkey in March of that year. A month later, he appeared in an ISIL propaganda video that turned up on the internet.

The case challenged a part of the admission program at the University of Texas at Austin that takes race and ethnicity into account. Abigail Fisher, right, with Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, left the Supreme Court in Washington after oral arguments in her case last December.

The Supreme Court said Friday it's important for media to gather news without government interference, but society's interest in investigating and STATEMENT: I am profoundly disappointed in today ’s ruling , not just as an appellant in this case or a reporter, but as a citizen of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada justices will release their verdict just after 9:45 a.m. ET.

'Corrupting' journalism

Makuch and his lawyers have maintained that journalists do not constitute an investigative arm of the police and have called the RCMP's request a "fishing expedition."

"When you ask a journalist to become an investigative body of an intelligence agency or a law enforcement agency, you are asking them to essentially corrupt what they do," Makuch told the CBC's  Anna Maria Tremonti back in May.

The CBC and a coalition of 12 press freedom and civil liberties groups from around the world were granted leave to intervene in the hearing.

"This is a critically important case for press freedom in Canada. What this is really about is whether or not the police can essentially turn the media into an arm of police investigation and how much protection journalistic sources will get from from those police investigations," said Josh Paterson, executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, one of the intervenors.

Canada top court rules against Vice journalist protecting source

Canada top court rules against Vice journalist protecting source Canada's top court on Friday effectively ruled against journalists protecting their sources, in a case in which police sought a Vice reporter's communications with an alleged jihadist for use in his prosecution. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said society's interest in investigating and prosecuting crimes outweighed the media's need to gather news without government interference in this particular case. But the justices also called for a tweak of the standard test used in weighing the two, saying journalists must be allowed to argue their side when police ask a judge for production orders.

Today the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in the most important religious freedom case of the year. The Court ruled in a 7-2 decision the actions by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s violated the Free Exercise Clause of a Christian baker who refused to create a cake for a same-sex

The split ruling by the justices, coming from a case in California that went all the way to the supreme court , is a win for anti-abortion groups, which have He continued: “This department will continue to vigorously defend the freedom of all Americans to speak peacefully in accord with their deeply held

"The courts have made clear in the past that there is a public interest in protecting the right of journalists to do their job. There's a public interest in being able to prosecute crime.

"But that public interest in prosecuting crime doesn't necessarily mean having to have access to every possible shred of evidence from every possible source."

Balancing the duties of reporters and police

Paterson said the intervenors are hoping to see clearer guidelines from the Supreme Court on how to balance the ability of both journalists and police to do their jobs.

"We think that the current standard is weighed too heavily, or has been interpreted too heavily, in favour of police investigations and away from the public interest in protecting journalistic sources, and we think it's time that the court should take a look at that and rebalance it," he said.

Crown lawyers have rebutted the claim that the RCMP was on a "fishing expedition."

"The police are seeking to obtain highly reliable evidence relating to serious terrorism offences, which they cannot obtain from any other source," their factum reads.

"They are not required to go further and establish that the prosecutor will actually need that evidence to prove the case at trial, nor are they required to exhaust all other investigative avenues."

Supreme Court double jeopardy case could impact presidential pardon power.
The Supreme Court on Thursday will consider an exception to the Fifth Amendment's ban on prosecuting an individual twice for the same offense in a case that could also possibly impact President Donald Trump's pardon power as it applies to the Robert Mueller probe. Decades ago, the Supreme Court developed an exception to the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause and it is now being asked to rethink precedent. The so-called "separate sovereigns exception" provides that a person can be tried twice for the same offense if the prosecutions occur in state and federal courts.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 0
This is interesting!