Challenging the Shield Laws

by

Rachel Roach


 

“The public suspects that the news business is more about money than a dedication to truth-telling," claims Bruce Sanford, a First Amendment attorney quoted in an article by the Associated Press (Associated).  But this loss of faith in the news media has more to do with the press’s growing inability to protect its sources with the shield laws in place to protect journalists and their secret informants. Law enforcement, government officials, and lawyers are challenging these laws and are responsible for reducing their power.

The first group subverting the shield laws is law enforcement. One way law officers try to bypass existing shield laws is by arresting journalists. For example, Irish journalist Ed Moloney as described by News Media & The Law, was arrested and informed that he could spend a term of five years in jail with continual fines if he did not relinquish notes he had obtained in an interview with a convicted murderer ("Irish" 18). Another way law enforcement is making reporting difficult for journalists is by withholding their right to report at all. Many reporters, especially those covering protests, points out Nat Hentoff in his article "Stopping the Press," have been detained for hours even days, not being allowed to use the information they have collected nor report it. Hentoff quotes Jonathan Turley a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University and columnist as he confirms an account by Noreen McAuliffe, one of several columnists detained at a protest at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings when he says that the police should be "held accountable" for their actions and for dismissing The First Amendment and public interest (Hentoft). Furthermore, law enforcement has been exploring new ways to subvert the shield laws by withholding information. Police departments, expresses the article "The Cops Radio Silence," are rapidly changing their old methods of radio dispatching to new high-tech radio systems which do not allow the press or the public to monitor. The new systems will not be accessible without law enforcement codes and reporters are challenging this. Lucy Dalglish, the Reporter Committee for Freedom of the Press Executive Director states, "Something that historically has been open to the press as well as the public cannot be arbitrarily cut off   ("The Cops").

In addition, pushing to reduce the power of shield laws are government officials. Vice President Dick Cheney has battled with the press for many years, says Adam Liptak of The New York Times (Liptak). Cheney, although not successful, tried to have immediate indictments drawn up against Seymour M. Hersh, a writer for The New York Times, claiming that he put "national security in danger" and wanted a search warrant for Hersh's residence to obtain notes that he kept there (Liptak). The author also quotes Kathryn S. Olmsted, a history professor at the University of California at Davis when she describes Cheney's view of the press from the book she wrote on the Cheney file called Challenging the Secret Government, "His philosophy is that the president and the vice president and the people around the president decide what's secret and what's not" (Liptak). Another example of how shield laws are being challenged by government is the threat to journalists of being prosecuted under the Espionage Act. For example, Liz Halloran and Scott Michels of the US News Media & World Report explain that this means that the exchanging of any "unauthorized" National Defense information can be considered a crime and that shield laws will not protect journalists. For instance, the author explains, two pro-Israel lobbyists were charged under the Espionage Act after they obtained secret National Defense information through mere conversations. Both lobbyists and journalists were stunned. The authors quote Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago who states, "All speech has consequences, and if that becomes the test, then they can prosecute all speech" (Halloran and Michels). Many journalists are debating on whether or not to run articles based upon "leaked documents," fearing that they will be prosecuted under the Espionage Act now knowing that shield laws will not protect them. For example, The Cleveland Plain Dealer decided not to run a story involving secrets that were leaked regarding FBI memos, for fear of their reporters being pursued or even prosecuted as other reporters have recently for exposing the same type of information, describes Liz Halloran and Scott Michels in their article "Curbing The Press" (Halloran and Michels).      

Another group that tries to subvert shield laws are lawyers. They are finding new ways to force journalists to relinquish the identity of their sources. One method that lawyers are using to circumvent shield laws is the serving of subpoenas to reporters with confidential sources. For instance, "In the past two years, more than 30 reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned by federal court officials about their confidential sources," states Lisa Friedman of the American Journalism Review (Friedman). This is discouraging for many journalists because people who leak or disclose secret information want their identities concealed and for good reason. For example, revealing a mother's name in a case involving one of her sons molesting a younger sibling, inevitably reveals the name of the child as Patrik Jonsson points out in his article "In Duke Case, a Bid to Tilt Public Opinion" (Johnson). However, this does not stop many lawyers in their pursuits. The existing shield laws also help protect rape victims from being scrutinized about their sexual history. Jonsson describes a rape case involving a woman and players of the Duke lacrosse team and how prosecutors are fighting the current shield laws in hopes that they may be able to disclose the rape victim's sexual history in order to alert the jury to the fact that she is a stripper (Jonsson). The defense lawyers involved feel the information will help their case. Another strategy used by lawyers to circumvent shield laws is simple diversion.  Josh Wolf, a freelance journalist was subpoenaed over a videotape of an Anarchist protest that he had taken previously in San Francisco, reports Elizabeth Soja in her article "Limited Protection.”  The lawyers surrounding the case claim that the tape was needed for an investigation regarding an injured officer and a damaged police vehicle, which made the case a federal one, adds Soja (14).  One loophole used by attorneys is the fact that shield laws do not protect journalists in federal cases. Soja quotes one of Wolf's attorneys, Dan Siegle, when he says that the use of the federal law regarding this particular situation is "a complete and total sham." Moreover, Seigle feels that the only reason this case became federal is because federal investigators wanted information about an anti-government group that was at the protest the very day the videotape was taken (14).

It is very important that the federal government move toward a solution. Shield laws are vital to the press as well as the public. Having the proper tools to deliver critical information is important because society needs to be able to continue to monitor how public safety and law enforcement agencies do their jobs. These efforts would strengthen our culture and leave the public able to make intelligent well informed decisions.

 

 

 

 

WORKS CITED


Associated Press. "National Shield Law Needed, Press Lawyer Says." 4 Oct. 2004.

         

       firstamendmentcenter.org 10 Feb. 2007. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org.news.html.


"Cops Radio Silence." Editor & Publisher 27 Nov. 2000:15. Academic
Search Premier Ebsco

      

      Publishing. Manatee Community Coll. Lib., Bradenton. 23 Feb. 2007 http://www.epnet.com.

Friedman, Lisa. "Unshielded: Anti-Media Sentiment Could Jeopardize
a National Shield Law

     

        for Journalists." American Journalism Review Aug-Sept. 2006:12.


Halloran, Liz, and Scott Michels. "Curbing the Press." US News & World Report 12 July 2006: 29-31.


Hentoff, Nat. "Stopping the Press" Editor & Publisher 4 Nov. 2002. Academic Search Premier. Ebsco

           

       Publishing. Manatee Community Coll. Lib., Bradenton. 23 Feb. 2007 http://www.epnet.com.


"Irish Court Overturns Contempt Charge." News Media & The Law 12 Sept. 2000:18.


Johnson, Peter. "Source Case Raises Fears." USA Today 5 July 2005. Academic Search Premier. Ebsco

       

       Publishing. Manatee Community Coll. Lib., Bradenton. 26 Feb. 2007 http://www.Epnet.com.