Source Protection Policy
Protecting incarcerated and vulnerable sources is not just an ethical obligation — it is the foundation of every editorial decision we make.
Purpose
Georgia Prisoners’ Speak reports on conditions inside facilities controlled by the people we are reporting on. Our sources face retaliation that can include solitary confinement, denial of basic necessities, physical violence, transfer to more dangerous facilities, loss of good time credits, and interference with parole. Unlike sources in conventional journalism, incarcerated people cannot leave, cannot hide, cannot call a lawyer at will, and in many cases cannot even describe what is happening to them without risking further punishment.
This policy exists because the power imbalance between our sources and the Georgia Department of Corrections is total. We have documented — through DOJ findings, AJC investigations, and our own reporting — that GDC retaliates against people who speak up. Our editorial decisions must account for that reality at every stage.
Core Principles
Do No Additional Harm
Our reporting must not make conditions worse for the people we are trying to help. Every editorial decision involving an incarcerated source must be evaluated against a single question: Could publishing this detail result in retaliation against this person while they remain inside?
Informed Consent Is Necessary But Not Sufficient
Consent from a source is required before publishing identifying details. But consent alone does not authorize publication. GPS editors must independently assess whether publication is safe regardless of whether the source wants their story told.
The Story Must Survive Without the Source
No article should depend entirely on a single incarcerated source whose safety could be compromised. If we cannot tell the story without identifying a vulnerable person, we hold the story until we can.
Systemic Reporting Protects Individuals
A story documenting patterns across a facility protects individual sources far more effectively than a story built around one person’s experience. When possible, GPS should frame investigations around systemic failures rather than individual cases.
Classification of Sources
Currently Incarcerated
Highest protection. Maximum editorial caution.
These sources are physically within the control of the institution we are reporting on. They cannot remove themselves from danger. Retaliation can begin within hours of publication and may be impossible to detect from outside.
Default position: Do not publish identifying details unless all safety criteria in this policy are met.
Identifying details include but are not limited to:
- Full name or GDC number
- Facility, dorm, unit, or cell assignment
- Physical description or distinguishing characteristics
- Specific dates tied to individual incidents
- Names of staff involved in interactions with the source (when the combination identifies the source)
- Grievance numbers or complaint filing details
- Family members’ names (when linkable to the source)
- Quotes from letters, calls, or messages that could be traced
- Details of prior assaults, medical conditions, or mental health status
Family Members, Advocates, and Power of Attorney Holders
Elevated protection. Moderate editorial caution.
These sources are not incarcerated but their identification can trigger retaliation against the incarcerated person they are connected to. Identification of an outside contact directly links to the person inside — and GDC has demonstrated willingness to retaliate against incarcerated people for their family members’ outside contact.
Default position: Obtain consent and assess whether identification of the outside contact could trigger retaliation against the person inside.
Formerly Incarcerated
Standard journalistic protection. Normal editorial caution.
These sources are no longer under GDC control. Standard journalistic consent and verification practices apply. However, editors should assess whether the source has family members still incarcerated, pending parole hearings, or other ongoing vulnerability to GDC.
Current or Former Staff, Contractors, and Officials
Standard journalistic protection.
Public officials acting in their official capacity have reduced privacy expectations. Whistleblowers among current staff may warrant source protection similar to Tier 1 depending on circumstances.
Decision Framework: When to Publish Identifying Details
Before publishing any identifying details about a Tier 1 (currently incarcerated) source, ALL of the following conditions must be met:
Required Conditions
A. Informed Consent
The source — or their legally authorized representative — has given clear, informed consent to be identified. The source understands:
- That GDC personnel will likely see the article
- That GPS cannot prevent or monitor retaliation
- That once published, identification cannot be undone
- The specific details that will be published
B. Active Safety Assessment
The editor has assessed the source’s current situation and determined that publication does not create an imminent safety risk. Factors to evaluate:
- Is the source currently in lockdown, segregation, or disciplinary status?
- Has the source recently been subject to retaliation?
- Is the source in a facility or unit controlled by the person or system being reported on?
- Does the source have pending grievances, disciplinary hearings, or parole considerations that could be affected?
- Has the source reported threats or intimidation related to speaking out?
If the source is in active lockdown or under active retaliation, do not publish identifying details regardless of consent.
C. Editorial Necessity
The identifying details are necessary for the story’s credibility and impact, and the story cannot be told effectively without them. This means:
- The story has been strengthened by at least one additional corroborating source
- The systemic pattern has been established independently of this source’s account
- Removal of identifying details would materially undermine the story’s impact or credibility
D. Documentation
GPS has documented:
- How and when consent was obtained
- The safety assessment and its findings
- The editorial rationale for inclusion
- What protective measures were considered and why they were or were not applied
Additional Protections to Consider
Even when all required conditions are met, editors should evaluate whether these additional protections should be applied:
- Delayed publication: Hold identifying details until the source has been moved, released, or the immediate threat has passed
- Partial identification: Use first name only, initials, or a pseudonym with disclosure
- Detail modification: Alter non-essential details that could pinpoint the source without affecting the story’s accuracy
- Sequenced publication: Publish the systemic story first, then a follow-up with personal details once safety conditions change
- Legal coordination: If the source has legal representation, coordinate timing with their attorney
- Welfare monitoring: Establish a contact plan with the source’s outside advocate to monitor for retaliation after publication
Handling Unsolicited Disclosures
When a family member, advocate, or source provides identifying information without being asked — as in the case of a letter, email, or phone call with detailed personal information — GPS must still apply this policy before publishing those details.
Receiving information is not the same as authorization to publish it.
Even when a family member explicitly says “I give you permission to publish,” the editor must independently assess whether publication of those details is safe for the person inside.
Special Provisions: Letters and Direct Communications
Letters, recorded calls, and direct communications from incarcerated people require additional handling:
- Provenance: Document how the communication was received and verify its authenticity.
- Content review: Before publishing any portion of a letter or communication, assess whether the content contains details that could identify the author beyond what has been authorized.
- Metadata: Be aware that details within communications — references to specific staff, dorm assignments, dates, incidents — can function as identifying information even when the author’s name is withheld.
- Reproduction: Do not publish photographs or scans of handwritten letters, as handwriting is identifying. Transcribe relevant portions only.
- Custodial chain: Assume that GDC may already have copies of outgoing communications. Factor this into the safety assessment — if GDC already knows what the source said, publication may carry different risks than if the communication was sent covertly.
The “Can We Wait?” Test
Before publishing identifying details about any currently incarcerated source, the editor must ask:
Can we tell this story effectively right now without identifying this person?
If yes — and the source is currently vulnerable — default to the safer approach. The identifying details can always be added later. They cannot be removed once published.
Will waiting for a safer moment materially reduce the story’s impact?
If the systemic story stands on its own, publish the systemic story now and hold the personal details for a follow-up when conditions change.
Is there a time-sensitive reason this person must be identified now?
Legitimate reasons include: imminent threat to life that public exposure could mitigate, legal proceedings with filing deadlines, or coordinated advocacy campaigns where identification has been strategically planned with legal counsel.
When Identification May Protect the Source
In rare cases, public identification may actually increase a source’s safety by making retaliation more visible and costly for GDC. This is most likely when:
- The source has already been publicly identified through other channels (news coverage, legal filings, social media)
- Legal counsel has determined that public exposure serves the source’s legal strategy
- The source has been released or transferred out of the retaliating facility
- A coordinated advocacy campaign involving legal organizations, legislators, or media creates external accountability
Even in these cases, GPS should coordinate timing with the source’s legal and advocacy team rather than acting unilaterally.
Responsibilities
The editor-in-chief makes final decisions on publishing identifying details of Tier 1 sources.
Reporters are responsible for clearly communicating this policy to sources and their advocates, and for flagging safety concerns to editors even when sources want to be identified.
All GPS staff and contributors are responsible for protecting source materials — letters, communications, contact information — with the same care applied to publication decisions. Source information should never be stored in unsecured locations or shared outside the editorial team without authorization.
Policy Violations
Any publication of identifying details about a currently incarcerated source that bypasses the required conditions in this policy constitutes a serious editorial violation, regardless of whether retaliation actually occurs. The standard is the risk created, not the outcome.
Review
This policy will be reviewed annually or after any incident in which a GPS source experiences retaliation that may be connected to publication. Lessons learned will be incorporated into policy updates.
This policy was developed in consultation with GPS editorial leadership, informed by documented patterns of retaliation in Georgia’s prison system including DOJ findings, AJC investigations, Southern Center for Human Rights reports, and GPS’s own investigative reporting. It reflects the understanding that Georgia’s prison grievance system has been found to facilitate rather than prevent retaliation, that GDC does not respond to media inquiries from GPS, and that federal enforcement of constitutional protections has been effectively abandoned.
Help Us Hold GDC Accountable
Your evidence, your stories, and your voice make our reporting possible. We protect those who speak up.