Saturday, November 20, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: A federal shield law

Congress should move quickly on proposal

Thirty-one states, including Nevada, have "shield" laws that protect journalists from being forced to disclose their sources, recognizing that without such a safeguard, the First Amendment's free press guarantees become compromised.

Yet last week a Rhode Island TV reporter was threatened with jail time because he wouldn't divulge who had leaked him an FBI tape of a politician taking a bribe. And reporters for The New York Times and other publications currently face jail time for refusing to disclose their sources in on going investigation over the leak of a CIA agent's name.

That's because the above are federal cases, and the national government provides no "shield" for reporters -- even though the Bill of Rights should be plenty.

On Friday, however, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., introduced legislation to create a federal shield law.

The protection would not be absolute. If the information cannot be obtained anywhere else and an overriding public interest exists in the disclosure, a journalist could be forced to testify.

"Democracy is premised on an informed citizenry," said Sen. Dodd. "A free press is the best guarantee of a knowledgeable citizenry."

Indeed. As one beltway attorney who handles First Amendment cases noted last week: "It's an issue of open government and whether the public receives the information they need."

And that's why Congress should act quickly to enact Sen. Dodd's overdue proposal.