Federal Media Shield Law Goes to Full Senate | News | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice
Pin It

Federal Media Shield Law Goes to Full Senate 

The Senate Judiciary Committee announced this afternoon it has reached a compromise on legislation to enact a so-called "shield law" that would prevent journalists from being held in contempt of court, fined or jailed for refusing to reveal confidential sources.

Since April, the law has been shepherded through the committee by its chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

The media shield legislation was introduced by Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in February. These senators, along with Leahy, have been working with the Obama administration to craft legislation that ensures some sources are not protected — such as in cases involving national security. It also does not protect "terrorists" working as journalists. Damn.

The legislation, officially named "The Free Flow of Information Act," was approved by the committee by a bipartisan vote of 14 to 5.

“The Free Flow of Information Act strikes the right balance among the important objectives of protecting our nation, enforcing our criminal laws and ensuring freedom of expression,” said Leahy. “After years of debate and countless cases of reporters being held in contempt, fined and even jailed for honoring their professional commitment not to publicly reveal their sources, the time has come to enact a balanced federal shield law.”

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have codified or common-law protections for confidential source information. Vermont has no state-level shield law for journalists.

Since 2001, five journalists have been sentenced or jailed for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in federal court. Two reporters were sentenced to 18 months in prison, and one reporter faced up to $5000 a day in fines, according to a consortium of media organizations that have been lobbying Congress to adopt the legislation.

"This legislation was too long delayed in committee. I commend Senators Specter and Schumer for working with the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Office of the White House Counsel, and various media organizations in consultation on this legislation," Leahy added in a statement. "I look forward to the full Senate’s consideration of this important bill.”

In September, the committee adopted several key measures aimed at placating critics of the measure. Immediately afterward, however, Republicans on the committee blocked the legislation.

The committee approved several key amendments to the bill today that would

• Require the government to prove the information it seeks is "essential" to the prosecution or defense in criminal cases;

• Preserve a public-interest balancing test for criminal and civil cases and in most leak cases (other than leaks with the potential for prospective harms); and,

• Alter the definition of journalist as defined in a earlier version of the bill by removing the requirement that the journalist be a salaried employee or independent contractor for a media organization. This could permit freelance authors to be covered by the legislation, as well as journalists publishing on blogs.

A separate amendment that would have specifically excluded bloggers from protection was voted down in committee. Leahy voted against that provision.

The Judiciary Committee first reported media shield legislation under Leahy’s chairmanship in the 110th Congress. It was ultimately filibustered on the Senate floor.

Did you appreciate this story?

Show us your ❤️ by becoming a Seven Days Super Reader.

Got something to say? Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Tags: ,

Pin It

More by Shay Totten

About The Author

Shay Totten

Shay Totten

Shay Totten wrote "Fair Game," a weekly political column, from April 2008-December 2011.


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Seven Days moderates comments in order to ensure a civil environment. Please treat the comments section as you would a town meeting, dinner party or classroom discussion. In other words, keep commenting classy! Read our guidelines...

Note: Comments are limited to 300 words.


Would you pay 26 percent tax for weed you could buy in a Vermont store?

Would you pay 26 percent tax for weed you could buy in a Vermont store?
  • If it meant legal sales, absolutely.
  • I’ll stick to the black market, thank you very much.
  • If it were my only option.

View Results

Recent Comments

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative

All content © 2018 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401
Website powered by Foundation