On July 23, 2020, King County Superior Court Judge, Nelson Lee ruled that five news outlets–KIRO, KING, KOMO, KCPQ, and the Seattle Times–would have to comply with a #subpoena and hand over to the Seattle Police Department unpublished video and photos from the protest on May 30, 2020, that turned violent and nasty. The judge found that the video and photos could be crucial for the investigation and decided in the favor of the police department.
Seattle Police later withdrew their subpoena, but this initial ruling was pivotal.
Was that ruling against the freedom of press, democracy, and justice? Certainly not. The idea that democracy cannot flourish without the unfettered freedom of the press is a media-created confusion and nothing else. How would it be right that offenders and criminals who burnt the public property in broad daylight should be allowed to walk freely? No civilized and democratic society can endanger public safety and leave its people at the mercy of perpetrators with stolen guns in their hands. Justice should never be compromised over unfettered press freedom in any progressive and democratic setup.
No one has the liberty to damage public property. It can never be justified that the perpetrators should walk free, even though there is plenty of evidence that could help the prosecution against them. Those who participated in burning the vehicles and stealing guns in the presence of police are more likely to cause an even bigger risk to society in the absence of police and security. Therefore, they should not be left unchained. Every possible measure should be taken to put the criminals behind the bars. And no compromise should be made under the pretext of shield laws.
No doubt, the first amendment gives the press substantial freedom; but no section of the United States Constitution or federal law allows the media absolute impunity. There are several cases of supreme court and other courts that demonstrated situations where the overall benefit of society is considered before the unquestionable freedom of the press. There are many rulings available in which public safety, confidentiality, and other factors were preferred over the so-called freedom of press.
Besides, Washington State’s shield statute allows for the press to be ordered to disclose the information under certain circumstances if the party seeking information justifies their claims under the requirements of this statute. Therefore, it can be believed that the King County Superior Court judge’s ruling was a fine manifestation of preference to justice over untrammeled and exploitive press freedom.
The independence of the press is pivotal, but it can not be prioritized over public security. Justice should be preferred over everything else. Law without justice is no good for any society. Because freedom, unfettered by justice, would only give criminals the freedom to be unjust to others.
