Bush White House Concerned About Bill to Shield Journalists from Revealing Sources

The Bush administration, citing concerns about criminal investigations and national security issues, blasted a proposed Free Flow of Information Act that, according to the White House, would protect too many news gatherers and bloggers from having to reveal their sources.

According to an article posted on CNETNews.com, Rachel Brand, an assistant attorney general with the Justice Department, is quoted as saying , "The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web." She also argued it would protect "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."

The squabble between Congress and the Justice Department is not new. Congress's attempts to enact federal shield laws have run afoul of the Justice Department's need to investigate and prosecute criminal activities and Justice's desire to subpoena as many people as necessary to build their cases.
Those who support the shield law point to recent cases-such as the one involving Judith Miller of the New York Times who went to jail for contempt of court rather than reveal a source. Groups who favor a free and open press have pointed to what they see as a rapid increase in the number of reporters being subpoenaed.

CNET points out that there are already laws in 49 states and the District of Columbia that give some protection to reporters who want to maintain the anonymity of their sources. However, these laws do not protect reporters from federal prosecutors. In response, the Bush administration denies that there has been a rise in subpoenaed reporters and argues that there are already safeguards built into the legal system, including a requirement that reporters cannot be subpoenaed to reveal sources without the personal approval of the U.S. Attorney General.

This year's version of the Free Flow of Information Act applies shield protection to anyone engaged in journalism, which is defined as "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

CNET notes that even covered individuals could be forced to give up their sources when, for example, it's clear that crimes have been committed, when "imminent or actual harm" to national security could occur, or when trade secrets, certain personal information or medical records are compromised.

Sources:

news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6191053.html
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1850302/posts