Some more reaction and fallout from the case of Ken Peters, the Hamilton Spectator reporter found guilty of civil contempt of court:

Peters was interviewed on CBC's As It Happens on Thursday night. The show's archives are available by clicking here.

Globe and Mail: Judge rips into media

Some excerpts:

Dana Robbins, editor-in-chief at the Spectator, said Judge Crane's "reference to what he characterized as an oppressive culture that exists within Canadian journalism is unfortunate.

"The culture in a newsroom is characterized by integrity and honesty and the commitment of professionalism, and the commitment to people keeping their word. We are feeling shocked, alarmed and greatly saddened by the decision.

"The notion that we or any other news organization . . . would tell our reporters to only entertain pacts of confidentiality that would expire at the courthouse doors is not one that I see as workable."

And he said the decision "is going to put the fear of God" in many newsrooms, especially smaller ones.

Anne Kothawala, president of the Canadian Newspaper Association, called the decision "staggering in contempt for the media."

"Fundamentally, if journalists can't protect our sources, then we can't protect the public interest. What's really at stake is the role that journalists and newspapers play in a democracy, ensuring the public interest is heard.

"There's so many stories today we may not have known about, like the Walkertons of the world, if these sources didn't feel that they could come forward and expose wrongdoing; if they thought somehow that their identity would be revealed."

She called protecting sources a fundamental journalistic principle. "This case is really ripe for an appeal, and I'm certain that members of the Canadian Newspaper Association will want to work with the Hamilton Spectator to take a leadership role in ensuring that this case is appealed. We will continue to vigorously continue to defend the right of journalists to protect their sources. It's a fundamental press-freedom issue.

"What this judge has done is pretty well wiped away even the qualified privilege that journalists have had up until today."

Canadian Association of Journalists: CAJ alarmed by judge's comments in Peters ruling

An excerpt:

"Judge Crane has displayed a shocking indifference to the importance of confidential sources in telling stories vital to the public interest," said CAJ president Paul Schneidereit. "There is no 'requirement' that journalists be prepared to break the law to defend their sources. That is an individual decision each reporter must make."

     "Confidential sources have been shown, again and again, to be crucial to telling stories of critical interest to the public. Journalists do not enter into such agreements lightly. Those who come forward to share information of overarching public interest would often face serious repercussions if their names were exposed."

    Schneidereit added that the lack of whistleblower legislation in this country makes keeping confidential the identities of those who leak information of public interest even more important.

    "Of course, journalists should always indicate to their sources how far they are prepared to go to protect their identity, including in a court of law. We commend Mr. Peters' refusal to name his source and thus keep his promise," said Schneidereit.

    On Wednesday, Judge Crane expressed sympathy for Mr. Peters, calling him "a pawn in a much larger game."

    "Defending the identity of a confidential source is no game," said Schneidereit. "The importance of such sources, and indeed of the role of a free press in a democracy such as ours, has been defended by Judge Crane's own colleague in a court ruling earlier this year. Yesterday's ruling is an unfortunate step backwards."