- Journal Archives
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
In a ruling affirming the rights and privileges of journalists, Cook County (Illinois) Criminal Judge Vincent Gaughan determined that music critic Jim DeRogatis was protected by the Fifth Amendment and, therefore, could not be compelled to testify in the R. Kelly child pornography case.
DeRogatis’ actions are largely responsible for Kelly’s prosecution. In 2002, an anonymous source gave the journalist a copy of a video that allegedly included footage of the R&B mega-star having sex with a 14-year-old girl. Kelly’s legal team attempted to compel DeRogatis to take the stand, claiming that DeRogatis’ testimony would undermine that of key prosecution witness, Stephanie “Sparkle” Edwards.
Judge Gaughan disagreed, but only on extremely specific grounds. While the judge originally ruled that DeRogatis was not protected from testifying under either the Illinois reporter privilege or the First Amendment and would, therefore, be required to face the prosecution’s questions, Gaughan later decided that the Fifth Amendment privilege applied, thereby allowing the critic to refuse to testify in court.
On its face, Judge Gaughan’s decision indicates at least some deference towards reporters and the need for unbiased reporting in today’s media. While names like Valerie Plame often come to mind when contemplating journalistic rights in today’s legal environment, it is encouraging to know that some American jurists are defending the rights of reporters who pursue their work with passion, vigor, and integrity.
DeRogatis, who could potentially be prosecuted for federal child pornography offenses after merely viewing the tape, was serving the best interest of the public when he supposedly copied the anonymously-submitted video to accurately report its contents, thereafter notifying law enforcement officials about the startling developments. Judge Gaughan should be applauded for recognizing that such controversial behavior is commendable, and reporters in situations similar to DeRogatis’ should not be further subjected to legal consequences. The decision of a journalist to act vigilantly is difficult enough without mixing in the fear of federal prosecution.
- James Gibson
Recent Blog Posts
- EPA Issues 2017 Renewable Fuel Targets Amid RINs Market’s Uncertain Future
- Cell Phone Firmware Avoids Anti-virus Scans, Sends Private Data to China
- The Consumer Review Fairness Act: Protecting Consumers Who Post Negative Reviews On The Internet
- Google Fiber Nashville Litigation
- Brexit and the Future of UK Sports
- The U.S. is Losing the Economic Drone War
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution