Corpus Christi Caller-Times – House passes a federal shield law for reporters

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/29/2007 16:45:45
• In: Shield law editorials

Corpus Christi (Tex.) Caller-Times
Oct. 21, 2007

Would "Deep Throat" have helped Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein unravel Watergate without their agreement not to reveal his identity? Not likely.

The ability to protect confidential sources goes to the heart and soul of the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press, for without the ability to protect sources from government retribution, the freedom that is guaranteed in the First Amendment has been considerably diminished.

That's the main argument on behalf of a federal shield law advanced by the House with an overwhelming vote Tuesday. The measure passed by a veto-proof vote of 398 for and 21 against. A companion measure is pending in the Senate. The House vote marks the most significant progress toward a federal shield law in the three decades the issue has been debated.

There are shield laws in 32 states that protect journalists from having to reveal their sources. This measure would extend that to federal courts. This protection is needed, according to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, because more than 40 reporters have been subpoenaed about their sources, notes and work in federal court. Recent cases include the leak of the identity of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame, and the revelations of steroid use in Major League Baseball.

The limited protection in the House bill would extend to paid journalists and their supervisors, employers, parents, subsidiaries and affiliates. Before the bill was passed, a compromise was reached by including exceptions to reporters' right to keep sources private. One exemption involves information that could prevent an act of terrorism or other harm to national security.

Still, the White House remains opposed, saying the bill would make it difficult to prosecute leaks of national security issues. One White House concern is that a federal shield law might extend protections to terrorists masquerading as reporters. That looks to be a red herring since the bill was amended to keep spies, agents of foreign countries and terrorists from being able to claim journalistic protection.

Claims that the measure could harm national security seem to be a stretch, since the bill was dutifully amended to address that concern. The opposition no doubt runs much deeper, especially when you consider this administration's penchant for secrecy.

One argument advanced by those opposed is that a federal shield law would shut off an avenue of investigation now open to federal prosecutors. Surely, federal prosecutors, with the vast powers of the government at their beck and call, should not have to rely on the notes and testimony of reporters to do their job. We suspect that the hidden reason for this opposition is the age-old desire of government officials to control access to information that might weaken their hold on power. And that, too, is at the heart of the conflict between a free press and the controlling political party in office.

When sources like "Deep Throat" don't think their identities will be protected, or when government whistle-blowers fear to come forward to tell reporters what they know, the press has been hampered in its ability to inform the public. When that happens, the freedom of the press has been weakened and the right of the people -- the masters, not the servants, of government -- has been abridged.

The protection of the people against excessive government secrecy, which weakens democracy, is by the power of the people themselves. That power was on fully display when the representatives of the people voted in favor of a federal shield law. Some see it as a victory for reporters. Actually, it was a big victory for the people.