Posted on 04/02/2005 11:38:56 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
AUSTIN - For years journalists have been hesitant to lobby for a shield law to protect their notes and tapes, but now is the time, many say, before it becomes too late.
"We run the very real risk of seeing our reporters and photographers and editors jailed for simply doing their jobs," said Donnis Baggett, publisher of the Bryan-College Station Eagle and legislative chairman of the Texas Daily Newspaper Association and the Texas Press Association. "We are on dangerously thin ice."
A Senate committee heard testimony last week on a bill that would give journalists a qualified privilege for the protection of confidential and nonconfidential sources and work product.
Panel likely to pass bill
Historically, many journalists have felt the First Amendment is enough protection for freedom of the press. Some also haven't wanted to go to a governmental body to establish a privilege rule.
"The media has always been reluctant to put themselves in a special class," said Houston Chronicle attorney Joe Larsen, who also is on the board of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. "Because you can be singled out for negative treatment just as easily as you can be for positive."
Filed by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, the bill is expected to be voted out of the jurisprudence committee on Monday and would then be eligible for debate by the full Senate.
"(This bill) will safeguard the free flow of information to the public by protecting the rights of journalists to protect their sources and communicate the news without unwarranted intrusion," Ellis said.
Prosecutors oppose plan
A similar bill, filed by Rep. Aaron Pena, D-Edinburg, is pending in the House.
Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have some form of a shield law. Congress is debating legislation to enact a federal shield law.
Both Texas bills have met opposition from prosecutors around the state, who say a shield law could hurt investigations.
"Do we want to just write about it or do we want to do something about it?" asked Barry Macha, Wichita County district attorney. "That's the bottom line. If you enact a bill like this, it would greatly restrict prosecutors from being able to get access to that information."
But Larsen said it has gotten to the point at which reporters are being asked to testify in cases at an increasing frequency.
"Essentially, the district attorneys are trying to make the media an arm of the prosecutor's office," Larsen said. "It puts journalists in the position of having to choose between testifying or jail, and that's a tough decision."
Larsen and others were quick to point out that this isn't an absolute privilege — the bill, for instance, says journalists must hand over anything obtained from the eyewitness observation of criminal conduct.
"This bill is a moderate, sensible approach to the problem," said David Anderson, a University of Texas law professor. "It's not an absolute privilege, and it's the right way to go about defusing the crisis that has erupted over the last few years."
jeffrey.gilbert@chron.com
Bad idea.
How about a bill to protect the rights of Americans under the 2nd amendment?
No special rights for anyone! This is a bad idea and total BS. The media already control the microphone, or bullhorn if you prefer. All this does is loosen, if not remove, what little restraint currently exists.
yep
This seems like a back-handed way for the government to license journalists. If the government has to "protect" journalists, then it has to first determine who is and who is not a "legitimate" journalist. Journalists with the mainstream media will be protected while journalists who are not employed by the big corporations will be targeted. The mainstream media will support this because they follow the party line and it eliminates competition. Scandal-prone politicians are pushing this for obvious reasons -- only "reliable" journalists will have freedom of speech. This is one prong of the attack on the First Amendment -- the other prong is campaign finance reform.
Makes me VERY uncomfortable..
Something to definitely consider.
Bad idea. Journalists have to be held accountable for their stories, otherwise we will get nothing but Dan Rather fabrications and "make news" fabrications like the stuff in Israel.
This bill should be killed, and a new one demanding fairness non-bias and truth drafted.
Fogery is already a crime and propaganda designed to provide "aid and comfort" to the enemy is Constitutionally defined as the crime of treason.
Hang them for their sins they already commit.
Spineless simps are giving Rathegate no agency investigation at any level.
That's exactly my position on this, but with a twist.
There's nothing I read in the article which stated that journalists are going to be registered or licensed.
In that view, just anyone who has a page of notes, etc, can claim they're journalists and avoid testifying. Something like that happened about a year ago, and I can't remember the circumstances, but a woman with no prior journalistic experience or credentials was called to testify and wouldn't because she claimed to be writing book on the matter, whatever it was. IIRC, she didn't testify.
The system works just fine now. Journalists have to know the line, and that crossing it is at their peril.
Bad idea. Journalists have to be held accountable for their stories, otherwise we will get nothing but Dan Rather fabrications and "make news" fabrications like the stuff in Israel.
This bill should be killed, and a new one demanding fairness non-bias and truth drafted.
oops,
Yes indeed; this must never become law. We also must demand that McCain-Finegold be repealed.
Most journalists are already "Special," but not the way they think...
Actually, the media already has this protection - they are just being held a little more accountably thanks to the internet. This bill makes it official that there will be no recourse for the media -- very dangerous!!!
I can't imagine giving the media a protected free hand ---- no accountability.
Define what "doing their jobs" means.
If doing the job is defined as slanted journalism to push a publisher's agenda then this bill only gives the MSM something to hide behind.
A bill like this can only lead to abuses and legalized slander by "unnamed sources", and any politician who signs onto it should be held accountable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.