The Long (Futile?) Fight for a Federal Shield Law

The Pentagon Papers case leaves open the question of whether journalists can be compelled to disclose the identities of those who reveal classified information to them. This essay considers some of the most enduring arguments for and against a federal shield law. Those who argue against such a law note definitional problems and contend that we must punish leaks given their impact on national security. They argue that institutionalizing the press actually harms the press and that the shield law is unnecessary given current use of technology to identify sources of leaks. Those in favor counter that definitional questions should not be a problem because almost all states have been able to resolve the questions in their laws. Moreover, most leaks do not compromise national security; government secrecy, deceit, and incompetence cause more damage to national security than the press’s reporting of secret information; and without a federal shield law, sources will not provide important information about government misconduct.

The Press, National Security, and Civil Discourse

The Constitution expressly provides protection for the freedom of the press. Yet there is one area in which the press is not so free: the freedom to refuse disclosing confidential sources when subpoenaed by the federal government. Currently, there is no federal reporter’s privilege. The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment provides no such protection, and repeated congressional attempts to codify a reporter’s privilege in a federal shield law have failed. Arguments against a shield law include national security concerns and the struggle to precisely define “journalist.” Such concerns were evident in the most recently proposed shield law, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2017. This Comment advocates in favor of passing a federal shield law. Specifically, this Comment analyzes the Free Flow of Information Act of 2017 against the backdrop of a post-9/11 America where “fake news” runs rampant. Though far from perfect, the proposed law was a step toward balancing national security concerns with press freedom. Legislators can and should strike an effective balance between these two tensions by accurately defining terms like “national security” and “properly classified” to prevent government overreach. Finally, this Comment argues that a federal shield law is necessary to combat the recent national security concerns raised by “fake news” and thereby reaffirm media credibility.

Shield laws in Australia: Legal and ethical implications for journalists and their confidential sources

This article examines whether Australia’s current shield law regime meets journalists’ expectations and whistleblower needs in an era of unprecedented official surveillance capabilities. According to the peak journalists’ organisation, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), two recent Australian court cases ‘despite their welcome outcome for our members, clearly demonstrate Australia’s patchy and disparate journalist shields fail to do their job’ (MEAA, 2014a). Journalists’ recent court experiences exposed particular shield law inadequacies, including curious omissions or ambiguities in legislative drafting (Fernandez, 2014c, p. 131); the ‘unusual difficulty’ that a case may present (Hancock Prospecting No 2, 2014, para 7); the absence of definitive statutory protection in three jurisdictions—Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory (Fernandez, 2014b, p. 26); and the absence of uniform shield laws where such law is available (Fernandez, 2014b, pp. 26-28). This article examines the following key findings of a national survey of practising journalists: (a) participants’ general profile; (b) familiarity with shield laws; (c) perceptions of shield law effectiveness and coverage; (d) perceptions of story outcomes when relying on confidential sources; and (e) concerns about official surveillance and enforcement. The conclusion briefly considers the significance and limitations of this research; future research directions; some reform and training directions; and notes that the considerable efforts to secure shield laws in Australia might be jeopardised without better training of journalists about the laws themselves and how surveillance technologies and powers might compromise source confidentiality.

Journalists’ confidential sources: Reform lessons from recent Australian shield law cases

That journalism, especially journalism delving into serious impropriety, relies heavily upon a journalist’s ability to honour promises of confiden­tiality to sources, and therefore needs protection, has been well acknowledged. Former Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in proposing protec­tion for journalists’ confidential sources—commonly referred to as shield law—in the first such major federal level initiative, said ‘[t]his privilege is an important reform to evidence law’ (Explanatory Memorandum, 2007); and in the circumstances then prevailing ‘the protection of journalists is too important an issue to wait’ (Philip Ruddock, Second Reading Speech, 2007). In one instance the court went so far as to say that the importance of source protection was ‘entirely unexceptionable and in accordance with human experience and common sense’ (Liu, 2010, para 51). Are journal­ists’ confidential sources better protected with the advent of statutory protection in several Australian jurisdictions? The media does not think so (MEAA, 2013). Former Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus observed towards the end of his term of office: ‘Recent court proceedings have highlighted the inadequacy of protections for journalists in some jurisdictions and lack of uniformity in laws across Australia’ (Dreyfus, 2013). The current Commonwealth government in relation to national uniform shield law is unclear. The Australian shield law framework beckons reform and recent events indicate some potential reform areas.