Show How big should the shield be Scott Gant Special to the Los Angeles Times As the August recess for Congress fast approaches supporters of a federal shield law for journalists are arc pressing for a vote on the Senate floor A version of the bill called the Free Flow of Information Act passed in the House 21 in October and now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to take it up before lawmakers leave Washington for the rest of the summer Shield laws protect journalists from having to turn over certain information to courts such as the identity of ofa a source story notes or documents Advocates contend that safeguarding journalists and their sources ensures that the public has access to the information it needs to watch over the government powerful corporations and other important social institutions nine Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia protect some journalists through such laws or court rulings Although state shield laws are important important- they do not apply when federal law is at issue an enormous gap That means in federal criminal cases such as the trial of I. I Lewis Scooter Libby federal grand juries or civil cases brought under any t l federal law jot journalists journalists' and their materials can be subpoenaed Reporters and their news organizations can be held in contempt of court if they refuse to comply as happened to former New NewYork NewYork NewYork York Times reporter Judith Miller who spent 85 days in prison for protecting the source who told her Valerie worked for the CIA The Bush White House which strongly opposes the idea argues that a federal shield law would weaken law enforcement efforts and jeopardize national security The administration enlisted key officials in its efforts to head off the bill the secretaries of Defense Treasury Energy and Homeland Security as well as the attorney general wrote to Senate leaders to voice their opposition The White House has suggested that President Bush will veto it It is unclear whether the bill can draw veto-proof veto support in the Senate although some backers which include 42 state attorneys general and numerous news outlets are optimistic There are compelling reasons to support a federal shield law and reasonable arguments available to skeptics But neither proponents nor critics are paying attention to a crucial question Who should be covered by the shield law That is to say who is a journalist or at least a journalist deserving legal protection Not long ago the boundaries between journalists and the rest of ofus ofus ofus us were relatively clear If you worked for a TV or radio stations station's news division a newspaper or a magazine then you were a journalist Everyone else was not Those d days yS are gone The line distinguishing professional journalists from others who disseminate information ideas and opinions to a wide audience has been blurred perhaps beyond recognition But a federal shield law would have to take a stand The version passed by the House defined journalism broadly as the gathering preparing collecting photographing recording writing editing reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public Yet it would have limited the statutes statute's protections to those who practice journalism regularly and for a substantial portion of the persons person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain The Senate if it votes at all appears li likely ely to incorporate similar language Should a federal shield law be limited to professionals or ought it reflect a broader view of journalism in the Internet Age Consider some tough cases Josh Wolf a self- self described independent journalist and filmmaker spent days in jail for refusing to hand over overa a video recording of a June 2005 riot to federal prosecutors who sought it for their investigation of damage to a San Francisco city police car Should Wolf and others like him himbe himbe himbe be protected by any federal shield law How about Mayhill Fowler in her own words an over-educated over year 60 old woman with politics in her blood who has followed Barack across the country It was l Fowler who rho recorded remarks about bitter citizens who cling to guns or religion and then posted it on the Huffington Posts Post's Off the theBus theBus theBus Bus blog sending a charge through the Democratic primaries Should her audiotapes and notes be available to prosecutors or parties to some civil suit There may be defensible reasons for limiting a federal shield law to those regularly engaged in journalism and to those who do it for substantial financial gain terms that arc purposefully vague and would have to tobe tobe tobe be interpreted and defined by the courts After all anyone can create a blog and Congress surely doesn't want to make available a journalists journalists' privilege to anyone with witha a laptop and an Internet connection But the reality is that people working outside traditional news organizations including some and citizen journalists have become a force in breaking news and analyzing it In its deliberation about a shield law Congress has largely ignored these important changes in our media landscape and elided hard questions about who should be considered a journalist worthy of the statutes statute's protections There have been no hearings or substantive debate on these points The bills bill's incredibly broad terminology is a congressional punt it has left all that hard work to the courts At the same time a federal shield law that limits its safeguards in this way promotes a narrow view of the First Amendment The freedom of the press is a aright aright aright right and a privilege that belongs to all of us And if C Congress enacts a shield law it ought to be one that reflects the reality that were we're all capable of being journalists now Gant a Washington attorney whose practice includes constitutional law wrote Were Vere All Journalists Now The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in the Internet Age |