On Tuesday, October 16th, the US House of Representatives passed The Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 in a bipartisan vote of 398-21. We at the Voice applaud the House and agree fully with the bill.
According to the Radio-Televison News Directors Association (RTNDA), the bill, know as the federal shield law, is designed to protect reporters from being forced to disclose their confidential sources. This bill was authored in response to several high profile cases in which reporters were subpoenaed and forced to testify in federal court about the sources of their information. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, since 2001 65 reporters have been issued media subpoenas by the federal government.
Some of those wronged by the absence of this law include The New York Times reporter Judith Miller who spent 85 days in jail for not releasing her sources in the CIA leak case. Additionally, two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were threatened with 18 months in prison for refusing to disclose their sources in the Balco scandal.
They and other reporters were threatened with punishment for respecting their sources right to privacy and shielding them from danger and retribution.
“A shield law does protect journalists. But the real benefit for society is that it protects sources, allowing whistle-blowers or other insiders to expose wrongdoing in government and the private sector,” a May 3rd New York Times editorial said. “The information they provide is vital to the public’s ability to know what government and businesses are doing and to make informed judgments.”
According to the RTDNA, 33 states and the District of Colombia have shield laws and another 17 states have recognized reporters’ privilege. Only Wyoming does not have any form of a shield law. But before this law came about, there was no law to protect reporters and sources against federal courts. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that reporters do not have privileges under the First Amendment to refuse to reveal their sources to grand juries. Hopefully that will no longer be the case.
The bill was supported by both sides in the House, despite opposition from the White House.
“In the past few years, there have been too many instances where the pendulum has swung against the free flow of information and in favor of the government,” House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO, said. “I was troubled by the instances I’ve seen where reporters have been jailed or threatened with jail for simply protecting their sources.”
As journalists, we understand the need to in extreme cases use private sources. Voice, Campanile, and Verde have all used pseudonyms at one time or another in their stories to protect their sources. It is not something journalists like to do, and it is only done in cases of danger to a source. But, as long as the Senate passes the bill, which is very likely, journalists won’t have to worry about the safety of their sources when running a story.
For those who worry about the law being used in a way that could hinder national security, the authors built a precaution against that into the bill. According to the Chronicle, reporters can be forced to testify under limited circumstances. This includes if the information is necessary to prevent a terrorist attack or great harm to the nations security, imminent death or harm, or if to identify a person who leaked trade secrets, financial, or medical information. The law excludes “casual bloggers”, criminal offenders and terrorist organizations.
It is vital that the Senate passes this bill like the House already has. But it can only become a law if President Bush does not veto the legislation. The Paly Voice urges both the Senate and White House to weigh all the options before this bill and all the protections it grants, are lost.