Federal Shield Law on Hold

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
Photo by Harry Cabluck,. (c) 2006 Associated Press

by Naomi P

The proposed federal shield law, which would protect journalists from fines or jail time for refusing to divulge their sources in federal court cases, has come to a standstill in the Senate, the Austin American-Statesman reported Monday at www.Statesman.com. The sticking point centers on the definition of a journalist and how that might relate to national security.

On one hand, allowing the government to define what a journalist is can have the effect of relinquishing the independence of a free press. As Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in the article, “I don't want people to say the government is, in fact, licensing journalists.” However, a law too broad could “give cover to a criminal or terrorist group mining classified information under the guise of journalism,” which is Cornyn’s concern on the other hand, the Statesman reported. “ ‘I don't want some jihadist self-designated as a journalist,’ he said. ‘The question, in this sort of new era we're in, is who is a journalist?’ ” (quoted in the Statesman)

Senior members of President Bush’s Cabinet are worried that a federal shield law would encourage the leaking of classified information and make prosecution of those who break the law in doing so it nearly impossible, according to the article in the Statesman.

Right of access rules work in attacked reporter's favor

by Naomi P.

If journalists need proof that having respect for the rules of access is for their own good, and the importance of 'keeping the camera rolling,' consider what happened this week to Charmayne Brown, a broadcast news reporter from WSPA-TV in S.C.

Brown stood across the street from a crime scene, following up on a story about a suspect in a murder. As she and her cameraman wrapped up, four people--some members of the suspect’s family--crossed the street, verbally attacked and physically beat her. A nearby cameraman from another station, covering the same story, caught the incident on tape. Because Brown was on public property at the time, the law is on her side.

One of the accused attackers and the family of another one of the accused have since issued an apology.

Fines blocked for reporter who would not reveal sources

By Naomi P.

AP photo of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill


Former USA Today reporter Toni Locy won a reprieve this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia from having to pay a huge contempt of court fine while her case is on appeal.

Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, about whom she wrote after John Ashcroft mentioned him as “a person of interest” in the anthrax attacks of 2001, filed a civil suit in which he demanded the names of Locy’s anonymous sources who confirmed or provided details about him.

Rather than sentence her to jail time for refusing to name her sources, as is usual in such cases, the lower court ruled that beginning Tuesday, she was to pay a fine of up to $5000 a day.

In an even more unusual move, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton also barred USA Today or anyone else, for that matter, from paying or otherwise assisting with the fine.

But while she is breathing a tentative sigh of relief, the rest of the press community holds its breath. If she loses the appeal, the case will set a precedent that could allow the court to force reporters into punitive bankruptcy and could foreseeably destroy the field and purpose of journalism, particularly investigative journalism. Journalists and even politicians are calling for a federal shield law.