Search

This paper analyses the legal protection of the journalist–source relationship from both sides and the underlying interests involved. The paper begins by analysing why the relationship deserves protection. The position of journalists at common law is analysed with a discussion of the application of the principle established in Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise to journalists. The development of immunity from contempt in s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is examined to illustrate the ideological clash between the judiciary and journalists. The impact of the Human Rights Act and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are analysed to assess whether this will lead to a change in attitudes in the UK. Finally, the potential threat to journalists posed by compelled evidentiary disclosure in criminal cases is reviewed, with a particular look at ‘special procedure' material. The US section begins with an analysis of the law at federal level, the decisions of the Supreme Court, including the leading decision of Branzburg v Hayes, as well as the role the legislature has played. The paper then analyses protections provided at state level, with a case study of the California shield law and a review of Californian jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, queuing theory is tested through an examination of the occupational attainment of six groups of non-whites in London and New York. Workers in the dominant economy are distinguished from those in the niche economy and emphasis is placed on the former. Black male immigrants in New York and black female immigrants in London hold more favorable occupational status. These results reflect differences in (1) the presence of indigenous minorities--African Americans and Puerto Ricans--in New York but not London, and (2) the relatively low position of indigenous minority males compared to the relatively middling position of indigenous minority females in New York's labor queue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]