As I noted previously, the Massachusetts legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing this week on a bill to create a journalist shield law in Massachusetts. House Bill 2255, the Free Flow of Information Act, sponsored by Rep. Alice Hanlon Peisch (D-Wellesley), would bar state government from compelling members of the news media to disclose the source of any news or information.
WWLP State House Reporter Christine Lee covered the hearing and filed this report. It includes interviews with media lawyer Jon Albano, Rep. Peisch and me.
Showing posts with label shield law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shield law. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Legislature Sets March 6 Hearing on Journalist Shield Bill for Mass.
The Joint Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing this week on a bill to create a journalist shield law in Massachusetts. House Bill 2255, the Free Flow of Information Act, sponsored by Rep. Alice Hanlon Peisch (D-Wellesley), would bar state government from compelling members of the news media to disclose the source of any news or information.
The hearing is set for Tuesday, March 6, at 1 p.m. in State House Room A-2.
The bill would also bar the compelled disclosure of notes, outtakes, film and other materials collected by a reporter but not used in any news report, unless a court first determines that the information cannot be obtained anywhere else and there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure.
In addition to barring disclosure of sources and notes, the bill would prohibit the state from compelling a reporter to testify except in cases where disclosure of the identity of a source is necessary to prevent imminent acts of terrorism.
Massachusetts is one of only 10 states that does not have a statute that shields journalists from subpoenas. Last April, West Virginia became the 40th state to enact such a law. The District of Columbia also has a shield law.
The Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association and the Massachusetts Broadcasters Association will be among those testifying at Tuesday's hearing. Others with an interest in this bill are encouraged to testify or attend and show their support.
Friday, May 07, 2010
No Shield for Journalists, Canada's Top Court Says
Journalists in Canada have no special constitutional protection against being required to reveal their sources, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today. However, courts may shield a journalist's source if the public interest in granting such protection outweighs the public interest in investigating a crime, the court said.
Read the full report in the Toronto Star.
Read the full report in the Toronto Star.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Judiciary Committee Extends Review of Shield Bill
The Massachusetts legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary has extended to May 7 the date by which it must report for or against a shield bill that would protect journalists' confidential sources. March 17 was the deadline for the committee to issue a report on the bill, but an extension order gives the committee until May 7.
The bill, House Bill 1650, would prohibit courts and government agencies from forcing members of the news media to reveal their news sources. The bill would also protect reporters against the compelled disclosure of notes, outtakes, photographs and recordings.
For more on the bill, see my previous post.
The bill, House Bill 1650, would prohibit courts and government agencies from forcing members of the news media to reveal their news sources. The bill would also protect reporters against the compelled disclosure of notes, outtakes, photographs and recordings.
For more on the bill, see my previous post.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Legislature to Hold Hearing on Reporters' Shield Bill
Massachusetts remains one of the minority of states without a shield law to protect journalists' confidential sources. That could change if a bill to be heard by the legislature next week becomes law. The bill, House Bill 1650, would prohibit courts and government agencies from forcing members of the news media to reveal their news sources. The bill would also protect reporters against the compelled disclosure of notes, outtakes, photographs and recordings.
The bill is under review by the legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary, which has scheduled it for a public hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 23, at 1 p.m. in State House Room B1. If you have any interest in supporting this bill, you should show up and make your position known to the members of the committee.
Notably, the bill as drafted would cover some bloggers as well as traditional print and broadcast journalists. Coverage is not based on a journalist's employment, but on the journalist's engagement in "bona fide news gathering" for any form of news media. "News media" is defined as "any entity that is in the regular business of news gathering and disseminating news or information to the public by any means, including, but not limited to, print, broadcast, photographic, mechanical, internet, or electronic distribution."
Thus, a blogger who is engaged in news gathering and who regularly gathers and disseminates news would be covered by the bill if it became law.
This bill is derived from one that was filed in the previous session of the legislature and that I helped draft as part of an ad hoc coalition of journalists, news organizations and media lawyers. That bill died without ever being reported out of the Judiciary Committee.
The bill is under review by the legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary, which has scheduled it for a public hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 23, at 1 p.m. in State House Room B1. If you have any interest in supporting this bill, you should show up and make your position known to the members of the committee.
Notably, the bill as drafted would cover some bloggers as well as traditional print and broadcast journalists. Coverage is not based on a journalist's employment, but on the journalist's engagement in "bona fide news gathering" for any form of news media. "News media" is defined as "any entity that is in the regular business of news gathering and disseminating news or information to the public by any means, including, but not limited to, print, broadcast, photographic, mechanical, internet, or electronic distribution."
Thus, a blogger who is engaged in news gathering and who regularly gathers and disseminates news would be covered by the bill if it became law.
This bill is derived from one that was filed in the previous session of the legislature and that I helped draft as part of an ad hoc coalition of journalists, news organizations and media lawyers. That bill died without ever being reported out of the Judiciary Committee.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Scott Brown's Short-lived Bill for a Reporters' Shield
Although various groups have lobbied for a reporters' shield law in Massachusetts, the state remains without one. But in 2005, just a year after he was elected to the state Senate, U.S. Sen.-elect Scott Brown made an aborted attempt to change that.
As the Senate took up debate on the state budget on May 23, 2005, Brown and former Sen. Brian P. Lees, then the Senate's Republican leader, proposed a reporters' shield law as a budget amendment. But by the end of the first day of budget debate, they had withdrawn the proposed law. No explanation was ever given for why they filed the bill so suddenly or why they withdrew it just as quickly.
Titled the "Free Flow of Information Act," the bill would have prevented the state from compelling a reporter to testify except in narrow circumstances. It would have absolutely prohibited the state from forcing reporters to disclose confidential sources.
Brown never refiled the bill, but he did sign on as a sponsor of a shield bill drafted by a coalition of media representatives and filed in 2007. That bill died in committee. Two Senate shield bills have been filed in the current session of the legislature, SB 1673 and SB 1574. Brown did not sign on as a cosponsor of either.
When last I counted, Massachusetts was one of 16 states without a shield law.
As the Senate took up debate on the state budget on May 23, 2005, Brown and former Sen. Brian P. Lees, then the Senate's Republican leader, proposed a reporters' shield law as a budget amendment. But by the end of the first day of budget debate, they had withdrawn the proposed law. No explanation was ever given for why they filed the bill so suddenly or why they withdrew it just as quickly.
Titled the "Free Flow of Information Act," the bill would have prevented the state from compelling a reporter to testify except in narrow circumstances. It would have absolutely prohibited the state from forcing reporters to disclose confidential sources.
Brown never refiled the bill, but he did sign on as a sponsor of a shield bill drafted by a coalition of media representatives and filed in 2007. That bill died in committee. Two Senate shield bills have been filed in the current session of the legislature, SB 1673 and SB 1574. Brown did not sign on as a cosponsor of either.
When last I counted, Massachusetts was one of 16 states without a shield law.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Mass. Shield Bill Fizzles in Legislature
Yesterday, The Patriot Ledger carried a story on the apparent death of a reporters' shield bill in Massachusetts.
"The effort to pass a shield law in Massachusetts offering protections to journalists and their anonymous sources was declared dead by its supporters on Monday.I was part of the ad hoc group advocating for this bill, which was spearheaded by Charles Kravetz, president of New England Cable News, and joined by a cross-section of print and broadcast media representatives. It seemed for a time that the bill had a good chance of at least making it out of committee and to the floor for a vote, but with the formal session ending tomorrow, that no longer seems likely. The legislature remains in informal session through the end of December, so it is possible something could still happen, just not, it now appears, likely.
"The bill would have put Massachusetts among 34 other states and the District of Columbia that have shield laws. Three days remain before the Legislature adjourns from formal session on Thursday night, and the bill has not emerged from the judiciary committee."
Friday, April 18, 2008
Podcast: The Case for the Federal Shield Law
John McCain's endorsement this week of a federal shield law for journalists has given renewed momentum to the Free Flow of Information Act pending in Congress (S 2035). At the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice has renewed its offensive against the bill with the launch of a special section of its Web site devoted to its opposition and an op-ed in USA Today by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. The debate takes on greater urgency as former USA Today reporter Toni Locy awaits word from a federal appeals court on whether she will be forced to pay contempt fines of $5,000 a day for protecting her sources.
We discuss the journalists' privilege and the need for a federal shield law in this week's episode of the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer. Joining my co-host J. Craig Williams and me as guests on the program are three experts in constitutional and media law:
- Lucy Dalglish, a lawyer and executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor and former dean at the University of Chicago Law School
- Joel Kurtzberg, a partner with the firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP who frequently represents reporters and news organizations
In the program, we discuss the federal bill, high-profile cases involving reporters, states’ efforts to enact their own shield laws, and the rights of journalists and bloggers. The program can be streamed or downloaded from this page.
You can stay up to date with all Lawyer2Lawyer programs by subscribing via RSS or through iTunes.Friday, September 21, 2007
NYT: A Shield for the Public
Yesterday's New York Times editorial, A Shield for the Public, puts the emphasis where it should be in supporting the federal shield bill. The key point is that a shield bill is not needed to protect journalists, it is needed to protect the public's right to know. If sources cannot be assured of confidentiality, they will not come forward to reveal wrongdoing in government and business. Here is how the Times puts it:
"For freedom of the press to be more than a promise and for the public to be kept informed about the doings of its government, especially the doings that the government does not want known, reporters must be able to pursue the news wherever it takes them. One of the most valuable tools they have is the ability to protect the names of confidential sources — people who provide vital information at the risk of their jobs, their careers and sometimes even their lives."
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Legislative Panel Debates Mass. Shield Law
One fact seemed clear after Tuesday's hearing on a proposed Massachusetts shield law -- the bill is unlikely to pass in its present form. That is bad news for the media coalition pushing for the law (of which I am part), because the bill as filed would be one of the strongest shield laws in the nation. But just how bad the news might be would depend on just how much its language would be compromised. The ultimate question could end up becoming: Is a weak shield law better than no shield law at all?
In his piece for The Republican, reporter Dan Ring does a good job capturing what happened at the hearing before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. The committee's House co-chair, Rep. Eugene L. O'Flaherty, came to the hearing having clearly done his research on shield laws generally. He made clear that he has a number of concerns with the bill, among them its potential for protecting individuals who reveal trade secrets. The Senate co-chair, Sen. Robert S. Creedon, expressed concern over the bill's coverage of bloggers, who he referred to as "the loosest of loose cannons." But Creedon also expressed respect for and appreciation of the role of the news media and seemed willing to see a shield law go through in modified form.
Seven witnesses testified with barely a question from the committee: Blue Cross Blue Shield Executive Vice President Peter Meade; journalists Jim Taricani, Susan Wornick and Natalie Jacobson; Boston Globe Senior Vice President Al Larkin; NECN Vice President of News Charles Kravetz; and WBUR General Manager Paul La Camera. Then three witnesses came up as a panel: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Executive Director Lucy Dalglish, Boston College Law Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea and Pulitzer Prize winner Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. At that point, O'Flaherty began to question them intensely about various aspects of the bill. The "jousting" (as Ring called it) continued for some time, even after Jones had to leave for an appointment elsewhere. The State House News Service described it this way:
O'Flaherty never said he opposed the bill outright. Some attendees conjectured that he would not have prepared so thoroughly if he thought the bill would go nowhere. And Dalglish suggested that many of his concerns could be addressed through modifications to the bill. It remains to be seen what those modifications might be and whether the bill, even if it makes it out of this committee, will ultimately become law.
Two other reports:
In his piece for The Republican, reporter Dan Ring does a good job capturing what happened at the hearing before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. The committee's House co-chair, Rep. Eugene L. O'Flaherty, came to the hearing having clearly done his research on shield laws generally. He made clear that he has a number of concerns with the bill, among them its potential for protecting individuals who reveal trade secrets. The Senate co-chair, Sen. Robert S. Creedon, expressed concern over the bill's coverage of bloggers, who he referred to as "the loosest of loose cannons." But Creedon also expressed respect for and appreciation of the role of the news media and seemed willing to see a shield law go through in modified form.
Seven witnesses testified with barely a question from the committee: Blue Cross Blue Shield Executive Vice President Peter Meade; journalists Jim Taricani, Susan Wornick and Natalie Jacobson; Boston Globe Senior Vice President Al Larkin; NECN Vice President of News Charles Kravetz; and WBUR General Manager Paul La Camera. Then three witnesses came up as a panel: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Executive Director Lucy Dalglish, Boston College Law Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea and Pulitzer Prize winner Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. At that point, O'Flaherty began to question them intensely about various aspects of the bill. The "jousting" (as Ring called it) continued for some time, even after Jones had to leave for an appointment elsewhere. The State House News Service described it this way:
"What began Tuesday morning as a series of pleas from news executives and experts before a seemingly incurious Judiciary Committee to protect journalists from revealing confidential sources, quickly escalated into a tug of war with the committee's chairman - a lawyer - over how best to balance freedom of the press with the judicial branch's right to demand information."Dalglish, of course, knows this issue inside out and is a veteran of speaking about it in Congress and other state legislatures. Papandrea recently published a law review article on the reporter's privilege and is likewise thoroughly well versed in the law. Their expertise only underscored how well prepared O'Flaherty was -- his questions and comebacks showed that he'd done his homework.
O'Flaherty never said he opposed the bill outright. Some attendees conjectured that he would not have prepared so thoroughly if he thought the bill would go nowhere. And Dalglish suggested that many of his concerns could be addressed through modifications to the bill. It remains to be seen what those modifications might be and whether the bill, even if it makes it out of this committee, will ultimately become law.
Two other reports:
Monday, June 11, 2007
Mass. Shield Bill Gets Hearing Tomorrow
A Massachusetts bill to shield journalists' confidential sources gets a hearing tomorrow before the state legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary. The bill, House 1672, will be heard Tuesday, June 12 at 10 a.m. in Room B-1 of the State House.
The bill would protect sources and reporting materials from forced disclosed by reporters, editors, and media outlets under subpoena from the courts or administrative agencies in Massachusetts. It strengthens the public’s right to know about situations that could affect their finances, families and even their lives.
Among those slated to testify in support of the bill are journalists Jim Taricani, Susan Wornick and Natalie Jacobson; Boston Globe Senior Vice President Al Larkin; NECN Vice President of News Charles Kravetz; WBUR General Manager Paul La Camera; Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Executive Director Lucy Dalglish; Boston College Law Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea; media lawyers Jonathan Albano and Jeffrey Newman; Peter Meade, executive VP of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts; and Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
The bill would protect sources and reporting materials from forced disclosed by reporters, editors, and media outlets under subpoena from the courts or administrative agencies in Massachusetts. It strengthens the public’s right to know about situations that could affect their finances, families and even their lives.
Among those slated to testify in support of the bill are journalists Jim Taricani, Susan Wornick and Natalie Jacobson; Boston Globe Senior Vice President Al Larkin; NECN Vice President of News Charles Kravetz; WBUR General Manager Paul La Camera; Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Executive Director Lucy Dalglish; Boston College Law Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea; media lawyers Jonathan Albano and Jeffrey Newman; Peter Meade, executive VP of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts; and Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Shield law scorecard: One win, one loss
While I away last week, there was good and bad news on the shield law front.
In Washington, the state legislature approved a shield law and sent it on to the governor, who was expected to sign it. The Seatlle Post-Intelligencer has details.
Meanwhile, a Texas shield bill died after failing to be brought for a vote. More details from AP via the First Amendment Center.
Here in Massachusetts, a shield bill remains pending in the state legislature.
In Washington, the state legislature approved a shield law and sent it on to the governor, who was expected to sign it. The Seatlle Post-Intelligencer has details.
Meanwhile, a Texas shield bill died after failing to be brought for a vote. More details from AP via the First Amendment Center.
Here in Massachusetts, a shield bill remains pending in the state legislature.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Sen. Kerry's Support for Shield Law
U.S. Sen. John Kerry spoke Friday to the New England Newspaper Association and announced his support for a strengthened Freedom of Information Act. (I assume he is referring to S. 849.) As his campaign blog reports, the announcement drew a fair amount of comment in the blogosphere.
I was present at Kerry's speech. His comments on FOIA actually came in response to my question to him about whether he supports a federal shield law for journalists. Yes, he answered.
I was glad to hear this, until I got back to my computer and realized that my question was embarrassingly uninformed. Kerry had been one of the formal cosponsors of S. 1419, the shield bill introduced by Sen. Richard G. Lugar in 2005.
At least now I know.
I was present at Kerry's speech. His comments on FOIA actually came in response to my question to him about whether he supports a federal shield law for journalists. Yes, he answered.
I was glad to hear this, until I got back to my computer and realized that my question was embarrassingly uninformed. Kerry had been one of the formal cosponsors of S. 1419, the shield bill introduced by Sen. Richard G. Lugar in 2005.
At least now I know.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
WA Senate Passes Reporter Shield Law
Looks like Washington state may soon have a shield law. Today, the state Senate voted 41-7 in favor of the law, a month after the House unanimously passed a similar measure. According to an Associated Press report published in The Seattle Times, the bill would create an absolute privilege protecting confidential sources.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Mass. bill would shield reporters' sources
House and Senate bills to protect against compelled disclosure of news sources have been filed in Massachusetts by Rep. Alice H. Peisch and Sen. Cynthia S. Creem. The identical bills were originally drafted by an ad hoc committee of media and legal professionals. (I serve on that committee on behalf of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, which has endorsed the bill, and I helped draft the bill.)
Other legislators who signed on as co-sponsors are: Sen. Joan M. Menard (D-Somerset), Sen. Scott P. Brown(R- Wrentham), Sen. Mark C. Montigny (D-New Bedford), Sen. Stephen M. Brewer (Barre-Worcester County), Sen. James E. Timilty (Norfolk-Bristol), Rep. Garrett J. Bradley (Hingham) and Rep. James M. Murphy (Weymouth). (Additional sponsors may be added until Jan. 22.)
The text of the bills is not yet available on the legislature's Web site. The House bill has been docketed as HD 1130. The Senate bill has been docketed as SD 00847. The bills read as follows:
Other legislators who signed on as co-sponsors are: Sen. Joan M. Menard (D-Somerset), Sen. Scott P. Brown(R- Wrentham), Sen. Mark C. Montigny (D-New Bedford), Sen. Stephen M. Brewer (Barre-Worcester County), Sen. James E. Timilty (Norfolk-Bristol), Rep. Garrett J. Bradley (Hingham) and Rep. James M. Murphy (Weymouth). (Additional sponsors may be added until Jan. 22.)
The text of the bills is not yet available on the legislature's Web site. The House bill has been docketed as HD 1130. The Senate bill has been docketed as SD 00847. The bills read as follows:
AN ACT to establish protections against compelled disclosure of sources, and news or information, by persons providing services for the news media.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Free Flow of Information Act'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person' means a person who--
(A) engages in the gathering of news or information; and
(B) has the intent, at the beginning of the process of gathering news or information, to disseminate the news or information to the public.
(2) NEWS OR INFORMATION- The term `news or information' means written, oral, pictorial, photographic, or electronically recorded information or communication concerning local, national, or worldwide events, or other matters.
(3) NEWS MEDIA- The term `the news media' means--
(A) a newspaper;
(B) a magazine;
(C) a journal or other periodical;
(D) radio;
(E) television;
(F) any means of disseminating news or information gathered by press associations, news agencies, or wire services (including dissemination to the news media described in subparagraphs (A) through (E)); or
(G) any printed, photographic, mechanical, or electronic means of disseminating news or information to the public.
SEC. 3. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE PROHIBITED.
(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in section 4, no entity of the judicial, legislative, or executive branch of the Commonwealth with the power to issue a subpoena or provide other compulsory process shall compel any covered person who is providing or has provided services for the news media to disclose--
(1) the source of any news or information procured by the person, or any information that would tend to identify the source, while providing services for the news media, whether or not the source has been promised confidentiality; or
(2) any news or information procured by the person, while providing services for the news media, that is not itself communicated in the news media, including any--
(A) notes;
(B) outtakes;
(C) photographs or photographic negatives;
(D) video or sound tapes;
(E) film; or
(F) other data, irrespective of its nature, that is not itself communicated in the news media.
(b) SUPERVISORS, EMPLOYERS, AND PERSONS ASSISTING A COVERED PERSON- The protection from compelled disclosure described in subsection (a) shall apply to a supervisor, employer, or any person assisting a person covered by subsection (a).
(c) RESULT- Any news or information obtained in violation of the provisions of this section shall be inadmissible in any action, proceeding, or hearing before any entity of the judicial, legislative, or executive branch of the Commonwealth.
SEC.4. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE TO PROTECT PUBLIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORIST ACTS
(1) A state entity may not compel a covered person to testify or produce any document in any proceeding or in connection with any issue arising under state law unless ... (a) disclosure of the identity of such a source is necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to public security from acts of terrorism; (b) compelled disclosure of the identity of such a source would prevent such harm; and (c) the harm sought to be redressed by requiring disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in protecting the free flow of information.
SEC. 5. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE PERMITTED.
(a) NEWS OR INFORMATION- A court may compel disclosure of news or information described in section 3(a)(2) and protected from disclosure under section 3 if the court finds, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to the person or entity from whom the news or information is sought, that the party seeking the news or information established by clear and convincing evidence that--
(1) the news or information is critical and necessary to the resolution of a significant legal issue before an entity of the judicial, legislative, or executive branch of the Commonwealth that has the power to issue a subpoena;
(2) the news or information could not be obtained by any alternative means; and
(3) there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure.
(b) SOURCE- A court may not compel disclosure of the source of any news or information described in section 3(a)(1) and protected from disclosure under section 3.
SEC. 6. ACTIVITIES NOT CONSTITUTING A WAIVER.
The publication by the news media, or the dissemination by a person while providing services for the news media, of a source of news or information, or a portion of the news or information, procured in the course of pursuing professional activities shall not constitute a waiver of the protection from compelled disclosure that is described in section 3.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Shield bill filed in Texas
A bill filed today in Texas would protect reporters against being forced to reveal confidential sources. The bill, HB 382, was filed by Rep. Aaron Pena of Edinburg. The text of the so-called Free Flow of Information Act is not yet available on the Texas legislature's Web site, but Associated Press reports that it would allow judges to require reporters to reveal privileged information only in certain circumstances. The Texas House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on the bill for tomorrow, AP says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)