The House passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 yesterday, the first federal law of its kind granting qualified privilege to reporters and protecting us from compelled testimony and forced revelation of confidential sources to federal investigators. It passed by an overwhelming majority, 398-21. And hey, it even includes protections for some bloggers.
I wrote a lengthy examination of this topic back in college that explored the possibilities for strengthening shield laws for reporters, so it's exciting to see this sort of landmark federal legislation come to fruition at this point in history. In an ideal version of the United States, reporters would be shielded by the First Amendment alone, but in actuality the interpretations of such have not lent themselves to the kinds of protections we need. Dozens of reporters have been subpoenaed in recent years, and the work of all journalists has been hampered by the ambiguous interpretations of reporters' privilege. While most states have passed their own shield laws as a way of providing more explicit protections, the resulting patchwork of legislation has only created more confusion. It's somewhat limiting to have to define privilege so explicitly at the federal level, rather than broadly protecting journalists via the First Amendment, but at the same time, it's less limiting than what's been happening in the absence thereof.
And of course, there are some caveats that soften the protection: circumstances where disclosure is deemed necessary to prevent an act of terrorism, death, or significant bodily harm; in cases where there is a need to identify someone who released private business and medical information; and in cases where the reporter herself witnesses criminal conduct. While those exceptions can be interpreted pretty broadly, Bush has threatened to veto the legislation on the grounds that it harms national security and law enforcement efforts, saying it "could severely frustrate, and in some cases completely eviscerate, the federal government's ability to investigate acts of terrorism and other threats to national security." The landslide support in the House, though, should be enough to override the veto, and it's expected to clear the Senate by a similarly significant margin. It's heartening to see our legislators standing behind it.
--Kate Sheppard
