Corporations suit to uncover source upheld

5 British media organizations (including the Guardian) received an anonymous tip in the form of a 44 page internal document detailing Belgium brewer Interbrew’s plans to take over South African Breweries. Interbrew sued for return of the document, and won. The decision was appealed on the grounds that media organizations are allowed to protect their sources. ### Press Freedom vs. Pressing Corporate Need

Today a judge up held the original ruling and the House of Lords refused to hear further appeal. The necessity of journalists being able to protect their sources in order to create a viable public sphere has been repeatably proven, and is protected under both English law, and the European convention on human rights.

However Justice Lightman found that the “pressing social need” in this case that overruled such basic human rights. The Justice argued that the only possible reason someone might have leaked the business documents was to rig the stock market, and therefore the commercial interests must take precedence over a free and open press.

Belgium has come a long way?

Personally I would have leaked the document on the basis of the tacky codenames alone. The takeover of SAB is referred to as “Project Diamond”, and SAB is codenamed “Zulu”. You would expect more sensitivity from a Belgium company moving into Africa, its as if they were taking over Congo Breweries under the codename “Project Rubber”, or “Project Leopold”, or perhaps just “Project We’ll Chop Off Your Hands”.