Pass the federal shield law

Given the many exemptions built into the federal reporter shield law that passed onto the House floor this week, it's difficult to understand why anyone would oppose it.

And yet the Bush administration, spurred by the Justice Department's strong opposition, says the bill somehow would harm national security.

The bill would shield reporters from facing prosecution for refusing to reveal their sources. The shield is important because it would allow people with knowledge of corruption to report that information without recriminations. Often, sources will refuse to divulge important information without a promise of secrecy. These sources frequently feel that all other official avenues for reporting abuses are, for whatever reasons, closed to them.

To date, 32 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws. Utah does not, but the judiciary is considering adopting a rule that would provide considerable protections.

The federal government, however, has no shield law. That is what allowed a special prosecutor to jail New York Times reporter Judith Miller for 85 days in the investigation into who had leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. The prosecutor wanted Miller's notes to a story she had no intention of publishing, even though revealing Plame's name likely did not violate any law.

These sorts of abuses can happen all too easily. Restoring the public's confidence that it is being told about government corruption, however, is more difficult.

The House bill would allow the government to force reporters to reveal sources only if the information is critical to the case and can't be obtained any other way, or if it would prevent a terrorist attack or imminent death. Even if naming a source would expose someone who revealed a trade secret or certain types of health information, reporters would have to talk or be jailed. The only burden on a judge would be to determine that the public gains more from having the name revealed than from the news and information the source generated.

Those are broad exceptions. They make arguments about national security sound hollow.