Journalists need a shield law, but not this bill

The House of Representatives is considering a federal shield law which would recognize the right of reporters to legally refuse to reveal sources or testify about cases in court, under first amendment protection. 33 States plus the District of Columbia have some form of shield law to protect the forced disclosure of information obtained by journalists, but there are no such protections when it comes to federal court. That may be changing soon, but will the law be strong enough to actually protect journalists, or will its broad exceptions do more to hurt press freedoms than help them? The House of Representatives was expected to vote on The Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 (HR 2102). When the bill was first introduced in May, it was not without its weaknesses, but its broad definition of who was covered and its limited exceptions made for a robust bill worth supporting. By August the bill had been amended to refine who would and wouldn't qualify as a journalist — only those who derive "financial gain or livelihood" from journalistic activity would be covered. Journalism students and many bloggers would no longer be covered. While a federal shield law is urgently needed, a narrowly tailored law that defines journalism as an occupation rather than an act could leave press freedoms worse off than the current situation. [Original URL: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/journalists-need-a-shield-law-but-not-this-bill/] [Full text via Indybay repost: https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/18/18454528.php]