In most courts reporters already have extralegal privileges. On the witness stand, or when being deposed, they can invoke “journalistic privilege†and not answer a question. A judge must later decide whether the “privilege†cited by the reporter—ostensibly to protect a news source or other delicate information—is valid or not. The “privilege†exercise can be used for a time to delay or slow down the proceedings. If a reporter writes the irrefutable truth he may encounter some slings and arrows but he will ultimately prevail. The journalists who desire a shield law are the ones who print unsubstantiated rumors or are the recipients of leaks from dubious sources. A shield law will be a license to be sloppy and reckless with the facts.
I know it is that’s why I want to reduce their other protection if they get the shield law. If they get something wrong and it defames or otherwise injures someone if my suggestion were to prevail then they’d have to pay. Their only defense I’d leave them with is that they told the truth. That wouldn’t even allow them the defense that they told the truth as they knew it.
It wouldn’t protect us against the leakers who give up secret material but it would protect individuals against people with a grudge and sloppy reporting.
I don’t think they should have a shield law to protect journalist for giving up National Secrets and protecting people who gave it to them. I think both of them should be in jail along with their editors and publishers.