Savannah Morning News — Shield law needed

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 08/01/2008 14:08:46
• In: Shield law editorials

Savannah (Ga.) Morning News
July 31, 2008

Georgia senators should stand up for a federal shield law for journalists and whistleblowers.

JOURNALISTS ARE neither police officers nor spies, and federal officials should not force them to act as either.

Yet the absence of a federal shield law protecting journalists from revealing their sources, notes and documents has the effect of doing just that. The U.S. Senate must concur with the House and fix this problem, which will help preserve a strong, independent and vital free press.

Unfortunately, Georgia's senators were on the wrong side of a procedural vote this week.

In federal criminal cases, federal grand juries or civil cases brought under federal law, journalists face prison time and potentially bankrupting fines unless they cow to subpoenas seeking to force them to out their sources.

Detractors make far-fetched claims that a federal shield law could harm national security. But federal agencies should be able to make their own cases without co-opting civilians into a de facto investigative force.

What's more, a House-passed measure, dubbed the Free Flow of Information Act, designates reasonable guidelines by which journalists could be compelled to reveal their sources in relation to acts of terrorism; eyewitness observations of a crime; or prevention of death, kidnapping or substantial bodily harm.

While the act contains these concessions, it will shift the judicial stance from assuming journalists must reveal their sources, to providing a narrow interpretation of when such revelations may be forced.

Under the current threat of possible imprisonment, journalists are less likely to break stories on sensitive topics. Faced with the possibility that their identities could become public knowledge, whistleblowers are less likely to come forward to reveal abuses committed by government, big corporations or criminal enterprises.

An employee who learns his company illegally dumps hazardous waste, or a bureaucrat who finds evidence of political corruption could face drastic personal repercussions if their identities were made public, and might not reveal important information without anonymity.

In contrast to the views of detractors, the public is actually less safe in the absence of a federal shield law, because certain hazards will remain hidden without protection for news sources.

The shield law passed the U.S. House in October by a vote of 398-21. However, the bill is now in peril in the Senate.

A procedural vote to bring the matter to the floor for a full debate fell by a 51-43 margin.

Regrettably, both Georgia senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson voted against the motion to bring the bill up for a full vote.

Some who voted to end further debate at present said they didn't want Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid distracting the body from its deliberations on the energy issue. However, Congress is unlikely to find an answer to the much more complicated energy question before its August recess.

A federal shield law has broad state-level support, with 42 state attorneys general on record backing the bill.

Sens. Chambliss and Isakson have also pledged their support for this bill, when the shield law comes up for a floor vote.

But that won't happen until the measure wins in the procedural vote.

Georgia's senators should stand up in favor of the shield law now, before the session draws to a close.

Denying journalists the right to speak to important sources without fear of retribution treads on the right of all Americans to monitor their government and report on their findings.