'Shield'ing the People from Independent Journalism: The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 and its

[Judi Lynn]

'Shield'ing the People from Independent Journalism: The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 and its Slippery Slope

Devon Douglas-Bowers I Politics & Government I Commentary I April 10th, 2014

Currently being debated by the Senate, but rarely discussed on mainstream television, is the Shield Law. While on the surface it may seem to be rather innocuous, some of the language in it and its implications are quite problematic for journalists.

A Shield Law is a law which "provides statutory protection for the 'reporters' privilege'- legal rules which protect journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources or other information."[1] Generally, this is a positive occurrence as journalists are much more able to conduct their work and bring information to public light if they do not need to worry about having to reveal their sources. While Shield Laws have occurred in the past, they have only been on the state level. This currently proposed Shield Law is the first one to reach the federal level, and the main goal is to protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources in federal cases. [2]

If the law were to pass, there would still be certain instances in which journalists must reveal sources, such as &quot 1) The party seeking disclosure has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources of the information; (2) The requested information is essential to resolving the matter; (3) Disclosure of the requested information would not be contrary to the public interest; and (4) In criminal cases, if the requesting party is the federal government, the government must show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred."[3]

While, overall, it may seem like a good bill, there are a number of problems with this particular Shield Law, officially known as theFree Flow of Information Act of 2013. For starters, it would "allow the government to seize reporters' records without notifying them for 45 days - a period of time that could be renewed by a judge for 45 additional days - if investigators convince a judge that pre-notification 'would pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation.'"[4] This power of seizing records without notifying reporters was used most recently against the Associated Press in May of last year when federal officials seized phone records under the justification that "they were needed for the investigation of an unspecified criminal matter."[5] Oh yes! What transparency and accountability! Infringing upon the First Amendment rights of reporters and then only giving what is essentially a BS, purposefully vague explanation.

More:
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/free-flow-of-information-act.html#.U2X_GWcU_mQ

[bananas]

1. it would "allow the government to seize reporters' records without notifying them for 45 days"