SPJ asks editorialists to promote shield law, calls

Leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists are urging editorial writers to beat the drum for a shield law that would give reporters a federal privilege to protect confidential sources.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said early this month July that S. 2035, the Free Flow of Information Act, would be a priority before the Senate recesses Aug. 1. Procedural obstacles could delay it further, but SPJ hopes editorials will to encourage readers to write to or call their senators and urge passage of the bill.

In October, the House version of the bill, H.R. 2102, passed 398-21 and the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Senate version 15-4. In early April, both presumptive presidential nominees endorsed the bill, and Sen. John McCain is now a co-sponsor. Attorneys general of 42 states also support it. All states but one (Wyoming) recognize a reporter’s privilege through laws or judicial decisions, but no uniform federal standard exists to govern when confidential source information can be sought from reporters.

“This bill is not a 'free pass' for the press,” SPJ said in a release. “A federal shield bill will ensure that reasonable ground rules are established for when reporters can be compelled in court to reveal their confidential sources. The current 'ground rules' are crafted and 'enforced' by the Department of Justice – the very entity that subpoenas reporters. ... This bill does not create a privilege for journalists putting them 'above the law.' The privilege belongs to the sources they are protecting. ... A federal shield law is necessary to ensure that sources feel free to speak to reporters and disclose information for the public good without fear of retribution. Without protection for their identity and the information they provide, sources will stop disclosing information and the inevitable 'chilling effect' will cut off the free flow of information to the public.”

Exceptions to the privilege would include information about for acts of terrorism or other significant harm to national security; eyewitness observations of a crime; or if the information is needed for the prevention of death, kidnapping or substantial body harm. "Over the last year, sponsors of the Free Flow of Information Act have made additional changes to the committee-passed bill in a good faith effort to address Bush Administration concerns," SPJ said. "Additional changes will be made to the legislation before the bill goes to the floor." For more information, click here.