Federal Shield Law Bill Proposed, But Not Strong Enough?

By: Joe Strupp The latest step toward the creation of a Federal Shield Law occurred today with the introduction of the first bill of 2006 seeking such federal protection for reporters. But the latest proposal has already drawn some skepticism because it does not provide absolute protection in all cases.

"We are unenthusiastically supporting it," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "But it is a political reality. I think this is probably as much as we are going to get out of this congress."

The "Free Flow of Information Act of 2006" was put forth on Capitol Hill today by a bipartisan group of senators that include Republicans Richard Lugar of Indiana and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, as well as Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New York's Charles Schumer. It is similar to a House version that was one of several proposals introduced last year.

The proposal is the latest in a string of efforts to pass a national law that would protect reporters from having to reveal sources. Thirty-two states have such laws, while most others have case law that offers similar protection at the state level.

"I believe that the free flow of information is an essential element of democracy," Lugar said on the Senate floor today. "In order for the United States to foster the spread of freedom and democracy globally, it is incumbent that we first support an open and free press nationally. The role of the media as a conduit between government and the citizens it serves must not be devalued."

The bill is not the first attempt at legislating federal source protection for reporters, with numerous similar bills introduced just last year. But supporters contend that it is more likely to receive support in the wake of a flurry of subpoenas issued to reporters in the past year, as well as the 2005 jailing of The New York Times' Judith Miller.

Concerns, however, have arisen over a provision of the bill that differs from previous versions. It essentially gives a judge the power to demand source information "in cases where the guilt or innocence of a criminal is in question, in cases where a reporter was an eye witness to a crime, and in cases where the information is critical to prevent death or bodily harm," Lugar's office revealed. In addition, judges may also override the law in cases where they deem a national security exception and those related to classified information.

Still, the weaker version has brought support from several media outlets and journalism organizations today.

"The act is intended to protect journalists and preserve the free flow of information to the public while safeguarding legitimate government interests in law enforcement and the fair administration of justice," the Newspaper Association of America said in a statement on its Web site today.

Added NAA president John Sturm, "While the bill introduced today does not provide an absolute protection for reporters from having to reveal confidential sources, we believe the legislation establishes important ground rules for confidential sources and reporters. It is a very positive step toward safeguarding the free flow of information to the public."

Eve Burton, general counsel for Hearst Newspapers, offered similar support, issuing a statement that said the proposal "recognizes the vital role confidential sources play in our reporters' ability to provide critical information to the public every day. This legislation reflects our country's need for protection of information journalists obtain under promise of confidentiality."