There are numerous state and federal laws that protect workers against revenge for complaining about their employers or government agencies. The laws prohibit employers or agencies from punishing those so-called "whistle-blowers".
The same philosophy applies to journalists, who often grant confidentiality to news sources. Confidential sources have helped kick out some important stories, from Watergate to Enron and from WorldCom to Firestone. Ensuring that these sources are protected will help audience get the truth, which sometimes may not be that satisfying.
Most of us still remember the most famous confidential source --- “Deep Throat” in the Washington Post report. And now it is clear that the “Deep Throat” is a former FBI deputy director, who revealed himself in 2005.
What if he was disclosed by reporters in 1972? What kind of danger would he face? To protect those confidential news sources, we need a shield law.
In general, a shield law aims to provide the classic protection of, "a reporter cannot be forced to reveal his or her source" law.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists, 49 states (all but
On March 31, 2009, the Free Flow of Information Act passed the House and now waits action in the Senate. Back in 2007, a similar bill passed the House but died in the Senate. Opponents contended that the measure could harm national security and hamper criminal investigations. But the House bill allows compelled testimony from journalists under circumstances involving terrorism, national security and imminent bodily harm and so on.
The First Amendment freedom of the press is one of the foundations of American society, and the confidential information about the world newsmen have found out influenced the society and even the history. A federal shield law will help the public have access to important information, and that is what really matters.
