Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTL CP
'A Sign Of A Tyrannical Government': Hageman Discusses Press Freedom Threats With Catherine Herridge
At today's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) questioned Catherine Herridge about the PRESS ...
About Hilary Hageman
During a September 2024 House Judiciary Committee hearing, Representative Harriet Hageman questioned journalist Catherine Herridge about press freedom and the protection of confidential sources. Hageman described the use of escalating daily fines against reporters who refuse to disclose sources as "a sign of a tyrannical government." She drew a parallel to the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to levy fines of $59,000 per day, which she said is used to force settlements. Hageman argued that such heavy-handed enforcement enlists the courts to compel disclosure of sources, undermining the First Amendment. Hageman praised Herridge for her willingness to "stand up to the tyranny" she said is seen in attacks on the First Amendment. She called on Congress to pass the Press Act, which she said would codify protections for journalists and prevent cases like Herridge's in the future. Hageman characterized the issue as a broader problem of government authority to levy heavy fines, which she described as resulting in tyranny.
Transcript (8 segments)
C
Congresswoman0:00
Under the five-minute rule, good morning, ladies, and thank you for being here to address such an incredibly important issue. Ms. Herriage, I'd like to start with you. About two months ago, you were held in contempt and levied daily fines of $800 per day for your refusal to disclose your sources. This is deeply concerning, and what's more concerning, you are not the first. In an article related to your case, The Washington Post reported how in 2005, five national reporters were held in contempt and levied fines of $500 per day, and in 2008, a USA Today reporter was held in contempt and faced daily fines of $5,000. All of these instances where reporters upheld their journalistic integrity and protected their sources, to ensure good reporting for the American people, only to face rebuke and heavy-handed enforcement by the courts, which are intended to protect the First Amendment. Ms. Herriage, how fundamental to reporting is the protection of your sources?
H
Hilary Hageman1:02
Congresswoman, I have not lost a night's sleep about my decision to protect my confidential sources. That is the core of who I am as a journalist. I'm facing contempt fines because I am upholding the most basic principle of journalism. If you cannot offer a source a promise of confidentiality, as a journalist, your toolbox is empty. No whistleblowers coming forward, no government official with evidence of misconduct or corruption, and what that means is that it interrupts the free flow of information to the public. And as we all recognize, journalism is about an informed electorate, which is the bedrock of our democracy. If you had asked me 37 years ago, when I started working, that I would be in the federal courts living a legal nightmare to protect my sources, I would never have believed it. I told you a story about my son. I'd like to finish it. At the end of the conversation, he said, 'Mom, you do what it takes. I've got your back.' And I thought, if a teenager understands how sacred this pledge is for every journalist, certainly Congress can pass the PRESS Act and codify these guarantees that will prevent cases like mine in the future.
C
Congresswoman2:23
Thank you for that. Do you think that the heavy-handed nature of these fines is to compel quick disclosure of sources and not give reporters a choice?
H
Hilary Hageman2:33
Congressman, just ask yourself how many journalists can withstand fines, in my case of $800 a day. Mine is being stayed pending the appeal. In another case you cited, it was $5,000 a day. These fines are designed so that you have to disclose your sources, you have to burn them. And in a marketplace where we have this explosion in independent journalism and smaller outfits, they cannot withstand these fines. They cannot mount a costly and vigorous legal defense of the First Amendment. That is why I think this is such a dangerous time, and why the PRESS Act can codify these guarantees. And it can happen with a very strong, in fact the strongest, bipartisan message about the importance of the freedom of the press.
C
Congresswoman3:24
Well, it doesn't just apply in your industry. We have other agencies, and I think it's a sign of a tyrannical government when we give them the ability to levy fines like this. An example that I will use is that the EPA has the authority to levy fines of $59,000 a day, and they do so. And that's how they will force people into settlements and consent decrees, even if they are not necessarily guilty, but they cannot withstand the pressure that they bring to bear. When you have a government that has that kind of authority, so I think that it applies in the First Amendment context with our journalists, but I think it's a bigger issue that we as Congress need to address across the board. Because again, I will use the word, it results in tyranny when you give agencies or officials that kind of authority. One thing that has been mentioned is that 32 states and Washington DC have shield laws, however not all states do, and there is no federal shield law. As each of you have described, as seen in your case and in the case of others, this has resulted in the courts actually being enlisted to compel disclosure of your sources. In instances such as your case, what does a hostile court system do for the protection of a free press?
H
Hilary Hageman4:42
I think it presents another very significant challenge for journalism. As my colleague Cheryl Aison said, when you are working with a whistleblower or you're working with a government source who has access to real information, and what I mean is information that is so important to get to the public so they can make up their own minds, especially about controversial issues, if you can't offer that assurance, nobody's playing ball with you. And as a journalist, you are always asking yourself, I think in the marketplace where we are today, what kind of assurances can I provide? Can I go to the mat for this person? I've always believed that I'm willing to go to the mat. I think I've shown that in this contempt case, but not everyone is going to be able to have that opportunity.
C
Congresswoman5:32
Well, I thank you. I thank you for your bravery. I thank you for what you've been willing to expose. And I thank you all for being willing to stand up to the tyranny that we're seeing in the attack on the First Amendment. It is critical for the freedom of every single person in this room. So thank you. With that, I yield back.
O
Operator5:49
Thank the gentle lady from Wyoming.