Freedom of the press regarding secret government information? There's quite a scandal going on in Switzerland about secret government information that was leaked to the press during the pandemic. Some government employees apparently have mailed information about internal documents to a certain newspaper. Freedom of the press is a high-ranked value in a democracy, but can the newspaper publish information it knows is a government secret? Could they be accused for it? The reports about the scandal currently focus on who's responsible for the leak in the government and whether the health minister has to step down, but nothing about the responsibility of the press.
Under article 293 of the Penal Code, publication of acts or proceedings designated as government secret by law or by a lawful executive decision is punishable with a fine (10,000 CHF maximum), unless there is an overriding private or public interest. The article was controversial for several decades and various reforms and repeal proposals were debated. Before 2007, the law also allowed a short detention (up to three months) as punishment. This was not a specific amendment to the article; short detentions (which were anyway not used much by then) were abolished for all crimes and replaced generally by a fine or a day-fine (fine technically convertible to specific number of days in imprisonment). The law was finally reformed in 2018, adding the exception of public or private interest, under pressure from the developing jurisprudence in the Federal Court and European Court of Human Rights. Under the provision before 2018, a formal secrecy classification suffices for a conviction, though the judge may waive any penalty if the classified material is of minor importance. Under the current provision, the court must balance between the government interest and the public interest represented by the journalist, and substantive aspects of the document will be considered to a greater extent. In any case, journalists are nonetheless protected from being forced to reveal their sources, unless it is necessary to avoid an immediate danger or prosecute an important offence (homicide, sexual abuse of children, other offences with a minimum imprisonment of three years or more; publishing government secret is not one of the exceptional offences); see article 28a. Example Martin Stoll was a journalist writing for Sonntags-Zeitung and published an article on a secret diplomatic document from the Swiss ambassador to the U.S. regarding the negotiations between Swiss banks and Holocaust survivors in 1997. He was charged under article 293 and was convicted and fined 4,000 CHF (reduced to 800 CHF on appeal). The Federal Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Stoll filed a case against Switzerland in ECHR, who in 2007 affirmed the lawfulness of the provision, but indicated a balance of interests will always be necessary for any punishment. The decision pushed the Swiss government to reform the provision, with the Federal Council affirming its willingness in 2008 and the adoption into law by Parliament in 2016. Other provisions limiting freedom of press in Switzerland Though generally respectful of human rights and having no journalist-specific legal regulations, Switzerland still has laws that may interfere with the freedom of press, sometimes to an extent that many may find uncomfortable with. Like many European countries, Swiss law protects the privacy of certain information related to children, persons accused of crimes, victims of crimes and witnesses in legal proceedings; though not all protections are by way of criminal law, a civil action of defamation (or similar claims arising from personality rights) is of concern most of the time for journalists. One controversial criminal provision (art. 47 al. 1 let. c of the Bank Act) was adopted in 2015 in relation to banking secrecy, as Switzerland is famous for. It is an offence to divulge any information obtained in violation of banking secrecy, even for journalists, with a penalty up to three years (or five years if the information is used for profit). No specific public interest exception is provided. Only overriding public interest may be a defence of necessity under general criminal law. For this reason, Swiss media was forced to refrain from investigating the Credit Suisse leak in cooperation with their usual international partners in 2022.
The United States has a very liberal attitude when it comes to free speech. Short of materials that are: child pornography, restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Libelous/Fraudulent, encourage or aid others in breaking the law, or seditious/treasonous/ terroistic/other credible threats there is almost nothing that can't be published. There is another example where supposedly The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments was banned by the US Government, but I cannot find any evidence or action against the author to support the claim. The Political Mofia by Schiff was not neccessarily banned, but an injunction from publishing was issued against the authors in US v. Schiff, 379 F. 3d 621 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2004 per 26 U.S.C. 7408 on grounds that the books was fraudulent. Essentially it is the Federal courts that can ban a book from commerce with cause. Schools, libraries and other institutions may ban it from their collections, but not from public commerce. Wikipedia has a list of Books banned by governments that you may want to look at to find examples.
The situation in Texas is unclear. It is worth mentioning Texas as a state where the law may require statutory authorization in order to copyright state documents. Although the statute does not explicitly state such as a requirement, it can be inferred from an attorney general opinion. At a bare minimum, the Department of Health, the State Preservation Board, the Water Development Board, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and county governments all have statutory authority to hold copyrights. In your specific case, there's an additional complication. Something is only a work of the State of Texas if one of the following is true: 1) it was created by a government employee as part of their job duties, or 2) it was a work for hire. It's quite likely that neither of the above is true for a student newspaper, rendering the question of Texas-owned copyrights irrelevant.
The intended reference is surely to Section 1078 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which is about &quot;Voice of America&quot; and other media services produced by the Department of State for non-U.S. audiences. Under the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act, the Secretary of State was authorized to provide for the preparation, and dissemination abroad, of information about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, and other information media, and through information centers and instructors abroad. This law did not explicitly authorize distribution of that material domestically, other than saying it would be available on request to members of Congress and in certain other circumstances. The policy of not making it generally available in the U.S. was hardened into law in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1972, saying Any such information (other than &quot;Problems of Communism&quot; which may continue to be sold by the Government Printing Office) shall not be disseminated within the United States, its territories, or possessions, but, on request, shall be available in the English language at the Department of State, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress. Subsequent tweaks carved out many exceptions for other specific content, and arranged for deposition of material in the National Archives. In 1985, a new provision was inserted to say that apart from certain enumerated exceptions, no funds authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States, and no program material prepared by the United States Information Agency shall be distributed within the United States. The developing statute law reflects a balance of concerns; it was felt that Americans should know what their government is saying to foreign audiences, but should not be the target of that official messaging. These additional provisions are not a departure from the position of 1948, so much as they are trying to set out the boundaries more clearly in the light of experience. The 2013 law, codified within 22 U.S.C. §1461-1464b, made some changes to the domestic regime. It authorizes post-2013 material to be made generally available to the U.S. public on request, potentially subject to a fee: there is no longer a requirement that the requestor has to be a scholar/journalist/etc. It also amends the &quot;no domestic distribution&quot; section to account for that change. The bar on influencing domestic political opinion remains, as can be seen from the current codification. The present situation is that much post-2013 material is available online (which is &quot;on request&quot;, in that you have to go to the appropriate website). There is a system for requesting permission to reuse this material, including within the U.S.; for example, you might do this if you were making a documentary and wanted to show some VoA footage. Per policy, there is a possibility for providing program materials, prepared for dissemination abroad, to domestic broadcasters aimed at foreign diaspora communities as part of the Agency's foreign policy mission. Subject to various criteria, this allows broadcasting material within the U.S., not by the federal government itself but by some commercial organization - if that is still compliant with the prohibition on influencing domestic political opinion, based on the way the material is used. The broadcaster is also obliged to credit the producing agency, so it should be reasonably clear when a video segment (for example) has this origin. In answer to the question &quot;Does H.R. 4310 allow the US government to use propaganda against citizens?&quot;, the situation is something like: it makes it possible for a third party to rebroadcast existing foreign-targeted propaganda for a domestic audience, in certain circumstances. It does not allow the government to broadcast or promote it domestically, and does not allow the government to produce it with a domestic audience in mind. An important note is that all of this legislation only applies to the foreign-audience material produced under the auspices of the State Department (under various agency names at different times). It does not cover broadcasting or communication by other parts of the federal government. A less important note is that the journal &quot;Problems of Communism&quot; mentioned in the 1972 Act is now called &quot;Problems of Post-Communism&quot;, and published by Taylor &amp; Francis rather than by the U.S. government.
http://www.healthinfoprivacybc.ca/confidentiality/when-can-and-cant-they-tell-others is a pretty good summary. Different rules apply to private practices than public clinics and hospitals. I will assume that the clinic on campus is private. This is a summary of the summary about who your information can be shared with: Health care professionals can share information within your "circle of care". Specifically, they are allowed to assume your consent to this but you can explicitly withdraw that consent. This would include doctors within the same practice. Admin staff can access your information for administrative purposes. Anyone you have authorised them to share it with e.g. relatives, friends etc. The Medical Services Plan for billing and admin If you are unable to drive If there is suspected of child abuse If you are wounded by a gun or a knife If you are a danger to others For your specific questions: I asked about it and they said it's confidential, but confidential to the clinic. Correct, unless you explicitly revoke this. the counselling department can share information with the doctors This is tricker, these people may be either within your "circle of care" or they may be part of the same organisation. Notwithstanding, councillors are not doctors and are governed by the everyday laws related to confidentiality i.e. information given in confidence is confidential and everything else isn't. If you are told the limits of the confidentiality i.e. they tell the doctor, then those are the limits unless you renegotiate them. he would know I only have one kidney? Well you said "the counselling department can share information with the doctors" and this would require the information going the other way i.e. the doctor sharing with the councillor. Even if this type of sharing was OK in general (and I'm not sure it is, see above); the information shared should only be what is required for the councillor to do their job - the number of kidneys you have is probably irrelevant to this. What laws apply to situations like this where confidential information in one entity (medical office) decides to share it without the consent of the patients to another entity (the counselling dept.)? Well, we are not sure there are 2 entities: legally there may only be 1 - the university. Anyway, the laws are the Personal Information Protection Act and common law (Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 SCR 455)
If such conversations are reported, it can place the suspect in a dilemma. Consider a man who appears to have overdosed on illegal narcotics. He is taken to the hospital, and the doctor asks what kind of drugs he took, in order to plan his treatment. If the man thinks that what he says could be used to prosecute him, he might lie to the doctor. Then he would not receive proper medical treatment, putting his health at risk. Lawmakers or police authorities might decide that it is better for society for people to always be able to speak freely to their doctors and receive proper treatment, even if it means that it will sometimes be harder to prosecute criminals. That would be one possible rationale for a rule like this.
Even within the United States, this would depend upon the jurisdiction involved. Some jurisdictions recognize a legal privilege of a journalist to keep confidential sources secret (also called a "reporter's privilege"), while others do not. There is a split of authority on the question within the various circuits of the U.S. federal court system, and there is also a split of authority between different U.S. states. The First, Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have all held that a qualified reporter's privilege exists. In the recent case of U.S. v. Sterling, the Fourth expressly denied a reporter's privilege exists. Furthermore, forty states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources. Three U.S. Court of Appeals circuits, the 6th, the 7th and the Federal Circuit, do not have any controlling case law on the subject. Ten U.S. states do not have shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources. The U.S. Department of Justice, as a matter of policy, seeks to compel journalists to disclose their anonymous sources only under specified conditions where the need is great, but this policy is not a defense available to a journalist in a case brought by the U.S. government. In the absence of a legal privilege, the journalist could be incarcerated until the information is disclosed or the need for the information is moot, for contempt of court. Quite a few journalists in the United States, faced with that choice, have opted to be incarcerated rather than to reveal a source. If the subpoena is upheld, even if the face of a good faith effort of the journalist to quash the subpoena on the basis of a legal privilege or other grounds, if the journalist does comply with the subpoena, the breach of the non-disclosure contract is legally excused and cannot be a ground for the journalist to be legally liable to the informant.
There is nothing to forgive. The question presupposes that it is a crime to lay eyes on classified information. Crimes related to classified information generally have an element of intent. For example, from 18 USC 793 (emphasis added): (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation ... (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe ... The other subsections are similar, but subsection (e) is most directly applicable to the present hypothetical, so here it is in full: (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; Seeing the files is not per se a crime. Finding the files and failing to ensure that they are returned to the government (or retuning them to the government while transmitting the information to unauthorized parties) is a crime.