Blog

Daily Camera — Stutzman: FBI apology shows need for shield law

Sources need protection from heavy-handed investigations

Daily Camera, Boulder, Colo.
August 13, 2008

Lest anyone doubt that a federal shield law is needed to protect whistleblowers and other confidential sources of the press, an FBI apology last week unde

Sources need protection from heavy-handed investigations

Daily Camera, Boulder, Colo.
August 13, 2008

Lest anyone doubt that a federal shield law is needed to protect whistleblowers and other confidential sources of the press, an FBI apology last week underscores the need for one.

Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation told the Washington Post and the New York Times that it improperly obtained the phone records of reporters in their Indonesian bureaus in 2004 by using emergency records demands from telephone providers.

Director Robert S. Mueller III called the newspapers' executives personally to apologize. The information obtained was not used in any investigation, according to the bureau. It also said it doesn't do the same type of records demands anymore.

But the incident is another chilling reminder that there is a need for the now-stalled federal shield law for media sources. If such a law were passed -- and it failed in a 51-to-43 vote to come to the U.S. Senate floor before the August recess -- prosecutors and law enforcement would need a court order to seize such information.

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., is a proponent of the bill. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., voted against bringing the bill to the Senate floor.

The shield law, in its current form, addresses the criticism opponents have continued to lob its way following the vote.

Critics say the law will put the federal government in the position of deciding who is “the media” in cases where the shield law is enacted to protect a source. This is not true. In its current form, the bill provides coverage for the sources of anyone who “regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes information of public interest.” This would include Internet reporters and bloggers.

Critics say that the shield law would open up risks in national security, but this is off target. The law specifically demands that journalists and bloggers reveal their confidential sources if a judge finds that the protected information would assist in preventing a terrorist attack or harm to national security.

The Bush administration opposes the shield law, and the president has threatened to veto the bill. Both presumptive presidential nominees support it.

We support the federal shield law, in its current form, and believe that the FBI's apology last week underscores the need for such protection. A truly free press will not exist without it.

Archive

Contributors