New Interest Being Generated For Reporter Shield Laws

By Susan Haigh Associated Press

HARTFORD — News of journalists facing possible jail time for refusing to reveal their unnamed sources has sparked a renewed interest on the state level for reporter shield laws.

Although most of those high-profile cases involve federal courts, some state legislators across the country say it makes sense to create safeguards for reporters facing state court challenges.

“The reality is, short of Congress acting, we have to act if we’re going to protect the reporters here,” said Edinburg, Texas, state Rep Aaron Pena, a Democrat. “If there was ever a state that needed to have a check of power, it’s Texas.”

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia already have some form of a reporter shield law in place, protecting journalists from being forced to testify or disclose confidential sources. Many of those were passed in the 1970s, the heyday for reporter shield laws, said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The state legislatures of Texas and Connecticut are among those considering adding their states to the list this year. In both states, the legislators sponsoring the bills — both lawyers — said they were motivated after learning about reporters being threatened with jail.

“A lot of times it’s hard for reporters to get information about public corruption on the record. That piqued my interest obviously because of the corruption we’ve had in Connecticut,” said Rep James Spallone, a Democrat from Essex.

Last July, former Connecticut Gov John G. Rowland, a Republican, resigned amid a corruption scandal. He has since pleaded guilty to a single federal count and is scheduled to be sentenced in March. Several of his associates were indicted on corruption-related charges.

Dalglish said reporter shield laws are typically spurred by specific incidences. She hopes the renewed interest in new state laws will coax Congress to pass a national law.

“I think if the remaining states start passing them,” she said, “it will give confidence to members of Congress.”

US Reps Mike Pence, R-Ind., and Rick Boucher, D-Va., have introduced a bill in the House, while US Sen Richard Lugar, R-Ind., introduced an identical bill in the Senate. Under those proposals, federal courts would have to meet strict national standards before they could issue subpoenas to reporters.

Late in the last session of Congress, US Sen Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., introduced a shield law proposal.

“Democracy is premised on an informed citizenry,” Dodd said in November. “A free press is the best guarantee of a knowledgeable citizenry.”

Dalglish estimates there are up to 30 subpoenas in the federal court system, demanding that reporters reveal their sources.

Last week, a federal appeals court upheld a ruling against Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper and The New York Times’ Judith Miller, who could go to jail for refusing to divulge the sources that leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer’s name.

In December, Providence, R.I., television reporter Jim Taricani was sentenced to six months home confinement for failing to reveal the source of a videotape showing a city official taking a bribe.

Despite those cases, the media have not always been united on the issue of shield laws. There have been debates over who should be protected under the shield law and how a journalist is defined.

In Texas, several newspaper organizations originally opposed the idea, arguing that they didn’t need the legislature’s permission to enjoy freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. But last week, the president of the Texas Press Association said opinions are changing as more reporters lose their cases in court.

“For so long, we assumed that there was protection offered by the Constitution and fewer and fewer judges and prosecutors are honoring that,” Wanda Cash said.

Spallone said he hasn’t heard much of a response from Connecticut’s journalism community, but hopes they’ll back the bill.

Rich Hanley, director of the school of communications’ graduate program at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, said there may not be much interest in his state because there haven’t been any recent high-profile cases. Connecticut’s courts have traditionally relied on past case law when handling matters relating to reporters and sources.

But Hanley said a state law is a good idea, even if Congress passes federal protections.

“It’s a good idea to show that the law supports the reporter’s prerogative to protect a source,” he said. “I could see how this law would clarify any issues, and I think the law regarding reporters needs to be clarified.”