Hillarysworld

Helping reporters keep their secrets

Should journalists be forced to reveal their sources?

Does the First Amendment trump law enforcement?

A number of high-profile cases in recent years have raised the question of whether prosecutors should be able to force reporters to reveal their confidential sources.

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for contempt of court when she refused to speak about her off-the-record chat with a Bush administration official.

In response, some Members of Congress have restarted an effort to extend new legal protections to journalists.

Here's the rundown:

THE MEDIA SHIELD LAW

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is trying to pass legislation that would establish a shield law to protect reporters from having to reveal their sources.

HISTORY:

Many states have some version of a shield law to protect reporters from subpoenas demanding disclosure of sources, notes or other materials.

The purpose of these laws is to encourage whistleblowers, particularly in government, to go public with problems they see without fear that their identities will be revealed if they talk to a news reporter.

Republicans and Democrats alike have been pushing for a federal shield law for years, but Bush administration and Senate Republican opposition combined to stall the measure.

President Obama — who co-sponsored a Senate bill in the 110th Congress as an Illinois Senator — supports the concept, but not necessarily the specifics of the legislation now pending in Congress.

The House passed a bill (H.R. 985 ) in March. The Senate Judiciary Committee is working on its version (S. 448 ). The two bills differ in several respects, but both contain exceptions to the shield for some circumstances.

KEY SUPPORTERS:

President Barack Obama

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.)

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.)

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.)

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)

The Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR:

* Reporters need to be able to protect their sources, their notes, and material they gather, in order to be the robust check on the government and the private sector that is protected under the First Amendment.

* A federal shield is needed because of inconsistencies in the various state laws.

* Although law enforcement officials should be able to obtain information needed to protect national security or prevent or prosecute crimes, they shouldn't be able simply to demand information from journalists in lieu of performing their own investigations

KEY OPPONENTS:

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

* There is no need for a federal shield law, because very few reporters have been jailed in recent decades for refusing to testify before a grand jury.

* A shield would hamper law enforcement officials trying to prevent or investigate terrorism or other crimes.

* A shield would allow reporters to avoid doing their civic duty by cooperating with the government.

KEY VOTES:

The House passed its version of the bill on a voice vote on March 31.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Sept. 10 adopted a Specter substitute amendment to the Senate bill by voice vote (it is customary for the committee to unanimously adopt such amendments at the beginning of its consideration of a bill, regardless of each member's position on the bill, so the sponsor can make initial changes).

The substitute amendment made several changes, including to provisions regarding who would be covered under the bill, and on classified information.

The committee is scheduled to mark up the bill further this week.

Keith Perine covers legal affairs for Congressional Quarterly.

"

Source link

I found this in discussion on a local political discussion forum in Pennsylvania, where it was posted on October 7, 2009.  Date of original post on Congress.org was unclear.

I find Congress.org a good resource and a great place from which to write letters to the Congress.