Latest Attempt to Pass Federal Shield Law Fails

The latest attempt to get a federal shield law for journalists passed has failed once again with the conclusion of the 111th Congress in December. The coalition of media groups pushing for the shield law says it may be years before they get another chance.

A shield law would protect journalists from being forced to identify confidential sources in federal court. Support for a federal law began in 1972, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional privilege for journalists to protect their sources. Judith Miller's incarceration in 2005 for refusing to name the government source who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame was another important motivator. But proponents for the law say that it is not only about protecting journalists, but to allow anonymous sources and whistle blowers the security to speak out without worrying about their jobs or families.

The bill, supported by President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, passed in the House in the spring of 2009 with broad, bipartisan support. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved it soon after, but it never reached the Senate floor. The hectic lame duck session of Congress kept the bill from ever moving out of committee.

The bill's failure is largely blamed on disagreement over who would be considered a journalist, and fears that organizations like WikiLeaks would be protected.

"I think by the third WikiLeaks disclosure, at that point, we were trying to take the temperature of folks on the Hill," says Sophia Cope, legislative counsel for the Newspaper Association of America. "They were like, 'No way.'"

The bill would have had an exception for national security matters, and protection would have been restricted to traditional journalists with ties to media organizations - a compromise that media groups said they could live with. But the information released by WikiLeaks was the final nail in the coffin, despite the fact that the bill would not have covered a WikiLeaks-type of organization, and language was added to specifically prevent large information dumps like the kind released by WikiLeaks from being protected.

With a new, Republican Congress, the chances for a shield law being passed are low. But media groups say that they will not give up, despite the odds.

Photo credit: creativecommons.org

Read more...

Good Bloggers and Bad Bloggers

The recent events in the case of the Apple iPhone acquired by Gizmodo has the potential for a significant legal precendence on whether blogger's can be protected by shield laws the same as journalists according to Jeff Neuburger, legal correspondent for MediaShift.

First there has to be determination on whether or not the iPhone that was abandoned in the bar is considered stolen property.

Brainstorm Tech names Brian J. Hogan of Silcon Valley as the person who found the phone. They also report that it was Apple who contacted the district attorney to report the iPhone as stolen. Hogan said he tried to return the phone to Apple, but was ignored. Then he realized what he had and started peddling it on the Internet. However, Hogan may still be charged with theft.

Gizmodo's editor, Jason Chen's home was raided by police last Friday and computer equipment, hard drives, phones were seized as police carried out a warrant that stated the equipment was used in the commission of a felony. That means that the San Matteo district judge sees it as stolen property.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the situation. Jon Stewart thinks that Steve Jobs of Apple is overreacting. Letterman says it comes under the category of "who cares."

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, there is also an element of journalistic integrity that should come into play. Jason Chen paid $5000 for this iPhone prototype. He gave it back, but not before disclosing all of Apple's proprietary technology over the internet. Is that news? Should that really fall under the category of journalism and be protected by shield laws?

Shield laws are meant to protect the journalist from having to testify to reveal their sources of confidential information. Information that is gathered because the public has the right to know and disclosure of the information is for the public good. I would argue that would not include the right to know trade secrets of an organization.

I think some bloggers are journalists and I think others are not. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think this will be the case that decides the issue.

Read more...