Frederick News-Post – Shield law

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/30/2007 10:04:22
• In: Shield law editorials

The Frederick (Md.) News-Post
Oct. 24, 2007

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives strongly endorsed a new journalism "shield law." The House voted 398 to 21 in favor of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, which would extend new protections to journalists in safeguarding their confidential sources. As the vote count indicates, the bill had strong bipartisan support -- easily enough to override a presidential veto. The fate of the bill in the U.S. Senate is said to be less certain, in spite of the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee has already voted 15-2 in support of it.

This federal shield legislation is breaking new ground, as it would, for the first time, establish legal standards on the federal government's power to order journalists to testify, disclose documents or name unidentified sources critical to their work. At present, most states have their own shield law legislation, but an overarching federal law is genuinely needed.

This federal legislation is important not only for practical reasons, but also as a statement that this nation is dedicated to the free flow of information and the people's inherent right to -- and need for -- access to what the press learns. President Bush is adamantly opposed to this legislation on national security grounds as they relate to the war on terrorism.

Some advocates of press freedom, however, say that as it is written, this bill doesn't totally live up to its billing. Even if it became law, legal protections for reporters and their sources and information would remain vulnerable when push came to shove.

One part of the legislation, however, would accomplish something important. It would require the approval of a federal judge before a Justice Department subpoena could be issued ordering reporters to testify about confidential sources. In the end, that doesn't guarantee the right result. It does, however, mean that subpoenas aimed at "outing" confidential sources would require the court's consent. That would, at least in theory, help depoliticize such decisions and make cover-ups more difficult.

One core issue here is that while fighting terrorism is unquestionably of critical importance to the nation, it's not something that can or should be off-limits to the press. Since 9/11, many revelations about how the government is conducting the war on terrorism have come to light. Some of the programs and procedures have been alarming in their scope and degree -- not only to many rank-and-file Americans, but also to many in the Congress.

We understand that an effective war on terrorism involves initiatives that may impinge on some of the rights and privacy that Americans traditionally enjoy. Secrecy also may be sometimes necessary to that effort.

Still, the ability of the press to use secure confidential sources is one that Americans should cherish. Government should not have the power to routinely force reporters to reveal their sources of information. Should that happen, those sources will dry up. When they do, so will the flow of information that protects the American public from government excesses and abuse that can occur with impunity by simply invoking secrecy in the name of national security.