Shielding our right to know

Reporters Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine are currently being held in contempt of court after refusing to testify in a federal investigation on the leaking of CIA agent Valerine Plame's identity to the press. The recent high-profile U.S. District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision forcing the two reporters to reveal their confidential sources in this case marks a continuing trend of the government to use newspapers as intelligence agencies, while giving the courts and/or Congress a chance to set a precedent for protecting news sources in the courtroom.

Since the founding of America and the establishment of First Amendment rights, many states have rightfully protected journalists from being required to disclose confidential sources for the sake of court proceedings. Currently, 31 states and the District of Columbia have reporter shield laws that allow reporters to keep sources confidential in legal investigations. However, federal courts expect journalists to protected sources and information at the drop of a subpoena, despite the court's allowances for psychotherapists, lawyers, spouses and priests to keep confidential possibly incriminating evidence in similar situations. Giving allowances to reporters for keeping sources confidential in federal investigations would not be a stretch for courts considering the latitude granted to other professionals.

The issue at hand stems from the 1972 Supreme Court decision in Branzburg v. Hayes which ruled that, regardless of the First Amendment, reporters must reveal sources and confidential information to a grand jury. Though the decision may have aided in convicting criminals, the verdict also limited the ability of journalists to gather adequate information for sensitive articles.

In the event that Supreme Court adheres to the 1972 judgment when given a chance to consider the case at hand, news gathering will face difficulties. Faced with the possible threat of being exploited in court for comments made in confidence to an interviewer, sources will filter themselves, ultimately censoring the press and tearing the fabric of substantive reporting on which this country prides itself. In addition, the threat of jail time for protecting their sources will cause journalists to leave sensitive articles as mere story ideas.

The Supreme Court may have the opportunity to fully uphold the First Amendment's "right to a free press" and thereby encourage journalists to report on sensitive, newsworthy issues without fear. Ruling in favor of Miller and Cooper is necessary if confidential sources are to be protected at every courtroom level. It is about time that the American government stopped threatening reporters for doing their jobs, and started protecting sources who reveal information in confidence.