In 1989, the Supreme Court made the wrong call in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, broadening the concept of personal privacy and narrowing the definition of the public’s interest in disclosure. One person’s privacy overrides everyone else’s need to know information that affects them. This ruling has led to a myriad of silly laws and policies that seem fine on the surface: keeping hidden someone’s birth date or home address. But when it hides the identity of killers, rapists, officials’ cronies/relatives on the government payroll, etc., it’s gone too far.

An awesome panel with the nation’s finest scholars in access will discuss the legacy of this key court case on Tuesday, April 28, in Washington, D.C. Folks like Jane Kirtley from the University of Minnesota and Lucy Dalglish from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press will talk about the effects of this court case and wehre we stand today. For more information see the Collaboration on Government Secrecy, which is sponsoring the forum, organized by Daniel J. Metcalfe.

Veterans Affairs officials returned an audio recording they took from a radio reporter last week, saying the agency “regrets the incident,” according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The agency also plans to look into the actions of the official who took the flash card from the reporter, a violation of the U.S. Privacy Protection Act. Kudos to Reporters Committee and others for speaking out against this kind of brute-force control over free speech and the media.

This Veterans Affairs official went WAY too far. David Schultz, a reporter for WAMU 88.5, an NPR station, told the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press that he was covering a public forum on Tuesday and interviewed a medical center patient when officials came up to him and demanded his equipment because he had not had the patient sign a consent form. Katie Roberts, a VA spokeswoman, said a consent form is required for any journalist to talk to a patient. Schultz said the event was public, that he identified himself, and that the patient agreed to be interviewed. Despite that, officials confiscated his memory card that included the interview. The patient gave the reporter his phone number so he could complete the interview later, which he did.

This is another example of privacy gone wild. Officials seem to think that medical privacy laws require them to prevent patients the right to talk to journalists if they want. That’s not protecting privacy – that’s muzzling free speech and a person’s right to speak out to anyone they want, including journalists. Apparently the radio station is working on a letter to demand the return of the memory card, for the principle of the matter. They should demand the firing of the officials responsible as well. Federal law prohibits the government from seizing journalists’ notes and other work product materials (without a subpoena – that’s another issue).