Sun Editorial:

A federal shield law

Congress should quickly pass legislation to protect freedom of the press

Monday, Nov. 9, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.

Nearly every state, including Nevada, has a “shield law” that protects journalists from having to hand over notes, pictures, videos and the names of their sources to police and prosecutors.

The laws are intended to protect not just journalists’ right to free speech, but also the rights of people who talk to journalists. Without such protections, people shy away from providing reporters information the public needs to hear, including about corruption and government waste.

Unfortunately, there is no federal shield law and that leaves journalists vulnerable to being fined and jailed if they don’t turn over information the Justice Department seeks.

Under the Bush administration, attempts to pass a federal shield law were routinely rejected in the name of national security. The Bush White House argued that journalists could have vital information about terrorism and a shield law would prevent federal investigators from finding that out.

That attitude has led to some prosecutorial excess. For example, Judith Miller, a former reporter for The New York Times, spent 85 days in jail for refusing to identify the person who told her the name of a CIA operative. Never mind that she never used or published the information.

Things may be changing. Although the Obama administration had concerns about national security, it worked to reach a compromise with lawmakers and supports a bill pending in the Senate called the Free Flow of Information Act. Under the proposal, journalists would have some protection from requests filed in criminal and civil cases. Attorneys seeking the information would have to demonstrate that the information is “essential” and they have no other way to obtain it.

The bill would give the federal government more leeway in cases involving national security. In some cases journalists would still have a burden to argue against disclosure, and although that is far from ideal, it is better than the status quo.

This bill is long overdue, and we hope Congress moves quickly to approve it.

Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

By Future

Nov. 9, 2009

2:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Although the Obama administration had concerns about national security....'

Really?
By mred

Nov. 9, 2009

4:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

60 minutes exposed the fact that in 2007 the Bush administration allowed 12 terabytes of information to be stollen from national security agencies. That's why Obama is acting on cybersecurity unlike the worthless clodhopper Bush.

The press protection bill should include fairness doctrine legislation to limit syndicated hate-talk radio.
By gmag39

Nov. 9, 2009

11:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Clodhopper! HA! That is so right for W.
Agree 100 percent on Fairness Doctrine Legislation. A.S.A.P.