Posted on 04/29/2007 8:20:33 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
AUSTIN — A bill designed to protect journalists' confidential sources gained tentative passage in the Texas Senate on Friday, but its chances of final passage remain iffy.
Dubbed the "Free Flow of Information Act," the bill by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, passed 21-6 for now, although it still faces fierce opposition from Texas prosecutors who fear criminal investigations could be hampered.
Ellis said he will attempt to bring the bill up for a final vote Monday, provided he can round up the two-thirds vote needed for a floor debate.
Print and broadcast news organizations are pushing for the bill because they fear confidential sources will dry up if reporters are increasingly forced to reveal their identities in criminal or civil cases.
The bill defines who is a journalist. It also sets up rules to protect confidential information and when a judge can compel journalists can to reveal sources or share information.
"It does not limit the ability of a DA to investigate crimes. It does not weaken the integrity of the grand jury system," Ellis said.
"It does not cover the garden-variety blogger sitting in their pajamas at home ranting and raving on the computer," he added.
Ellis stressed that the journalist privilege is not absolute in the bill.
Anonymous sources were key, he pointed out, in exposing abuses at the Texas Youth Commission and the Texas Lottery, along with corporate scandals at Enron and WorldCom.
At least 31 states and the District of Columbia have so-called "shield laws" protecting journalists, Ellis said, under skeptical questioning from Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo.
"There are so many states, Senator Seliger, that have provisions like this, most stronger, much stronger than this one," Ellis said.
"If there's a life at stake, a journalist testifies," he said. "If a reporter witnesses a crime, the reporter testifies."
The bill also says judges could compel reporters to disclose confidential information in criminal cases if prosecutors can show they can't obtain that information from any other source.
Ellis accepted an amendment from Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, to compel journalists to testify or disclose information obtained from a person who has confessed to a violent crime against a child younger than 14.
Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, said he believes the law would not compel journalists to reveal the names of child pornographers, one of the targets of a get-tough "Jessica's Law" aimed at child predators that the Senate passed this week.
Sens. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, and Ogden said they will offer amendments should the bill return to the Senate floor.
Ellis warned that if any amendments pass that he thinks will gut the bill, he will withdraw it the way he did last session.
"It does not cover the garden-variety blogger sitting in their pajamas at home ranting and raving on the computer"
Why not? Next thing you know only licensed "journalists" will be allowed to cover news events. Personally, I am opposed to shield laws for journalists, but if dead tree and dinosaur media get shielded, why not bloggers? Isn't there an "equal protection" problem with only shielding favored group?
Legislatures like it. Now leaks are truly anonymous and the Press doesn’t have to say anything. Just print it. Remember: A politician always has a motive ... a self-serving one.
|
This is retarded, and furthermore it’s happening in my state.
Now the journalists can make up their own stories and get away with it... oh, wait.
How “nice” that presstitutes get a lifetime exemption.
After all, freedom of speech and press (assuming, of course, such protections are in the Texas Constitution) is a collective right held "in trust" by other units of gubmint, not an individual right...Oh wait, that's the standard for arms, but it will quickly become the standard for speech as well.
They can protect sources that misrepresent the facts for their own of political gain. They can protect sources that outright lie. They can hide sources that lack credibility.
They can even make things up, and attribute them to confidential sources.
Libel and slander become nearly impossible to prove because it "came from a confidential source".
The press should not have ANY special legal protections.
Free speech is not a privilege of the press, nor does the press have a greater right to free speech than anyone else.
The last thing we need right now is to give the press an even greater ability to hide the truth.
“Might” is the operative word. Remember that the interpretation is ultimately left up to judges (or as I call them; Lawgivers-In-Black, or LIBs for short).
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.
