Blog

Times Union — A shield — now

Times Union, Albany, N.Y.
March 11, 2008

Last October, the chances for a federal shield law looked promising. The House had passed legislation to protect reporters from facing fines and jail for refusing to disclose their confidential sources in federal cases, and the Sena

Times Union, Albany, N.Y.
March 11, 2008

Last October, the chances for a federal shield law looked promising. The House had passed legislation to protect reporters from facing fines and jail for refusing to disclose their confidential sources in federal cases, and the Senate Judiciary Committee had just approved a similar bill. It seemed that a vote by the full Senate would follow soon. But that never happened, and now another case involving the press and the public's right to know is playing out in a federal court in Washington, D.C. It should never have come to this.

The latest case has placed a former reporter for USA Today, Toni Locy, at risk of financial ruin. She is ensnared in a civil lawsuit filed by Steven Hatfill, an Army scientist who was named a "person of interest" by former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the government investigated the deaths of five people from anthrax poisoning in 2001. Mr. Hatfill claims his privacy rights were violated by the Justice Department and the FBI.

Ms. Locy, who wrote about the anthrax scare in a May 2002 article, is now under order from a federal judge to reveal her confidential sources as the Hatfill lawsuit winds its way through the courts. She has revealed two names, after the sources gave her permission to identify them. But she has refused to reveal the names of 10 other sources, some of whom gave her information that has no relevance to the Hatfill case, on the grounds that she cannot recall whose information she used in the 2002 article. As a result, she could be personally liable for a contempt of court fine of $500 a day, beginning this week, and perhaps as much as $5,000 a day, if she continues to protect her sources.

Ms. Locy would be not be in such straits if the Hatfill suit had been filed in any of the 49 states, including New York, that have shield laws or court rulings that recognize the right of journalists to protect confidential sources. Those laws are grounded in the belief that the public benefits when sources come to the press to divulge wrongdoing or other malfeasance, but seek to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal.

No such protection exists at the federal level, despite the efforts of Sen. Charles Schumer D-N.Y., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who have co-sponsored the Senate version of a federal shield law. One reason why the full Senate has not followed the House example may be the signals sent by the White House last fall, when President Bush warned that he would not sign a shield law that hampered the government's ability to investigate acts of terrorism.

That's a legitimate concern. But the Senate measure makes specific exceptions for cases involving national security, so there is no reason to delay passage. The longer the Senate stalls, the longer the public's right to know will be at risk.

THE ISSUE: Another reporter faces penalties for protecting sources.

THE STAKES: Without a federal law, the public's right to know is at risk.

Archive

Contributors