Respect the 1st Amendment

Somewhere in Rhode Island, television reporter Jim Taricani is imprisoned in his own home. His crime: Defending a journalistic principle he thought his country believed in and his Constitution guaranteed.\nTaricani received a videotape from a confidential source showing a Providence, R.I., government official taking a bribe from an FBI agent. His investigative reporting helped convict a former Providence mayor of corruption, sending the politician to prison for five years. \nBut Taricani wouldn't budge when a U.S. District Court judge ordered him to reveal the source who leaked the videotape. Even after the prosecutor determined the source without Taricani's help, the judge convicted him of contempt of court and sentenced him to half a year of home imprisonment and his station to $85,000 in fines.\nIn government, confidential sources and whistle-blowers sometimes expose the biggest scandals and corruptions. Taricani's story is not unique. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press lists seven active cases involving journalists facing subpoenas of their sources. \nThat's seven cases in courtrooms today where journalists must decide between giving into jail sentences or giving up their word. And in a profession where words -- both written and spoken -- are the backbone of all ethical discussions, journalists backed into such a corner are in a most precarious position.\nIndiana Congressman Mike Pence and Senator Richard Lugar think a federal shield law is the answer. The two are sponsoring a bill, the Free Flow of Information Act, that would protect sources' names absolutely. No grand jury, no subpoena and no threat of jail time would ever be able to make a journalist divulge a source's name. Other information could be obtained from journalists, but only if a number of qualifications were met beforehand and if the source's identity wasn't revealed in the process.\nOn the surface, the bill sounds like a great idea and one that would surely save some journalists from choosing between their ethics and their freedom. It would also add a level of consistency to shield laws. Currently, different states enforce different standards. If Taricani had worked in Nevada, where journalists can never be compelled to reveal their sources, he'd likely be hot on the trail of another big story. Instead, he's cooped up in his home for a crime he was forced to commit.\nBut that doesn't mean Pence and Lugar's bill is the end-all, save-all solution to such problems of journalistic freedom. It's likely that the same people who today dodge the constraints and aims of the First Amendment to subpoena journalists would find a way around new litigation, too. \nBut above all, a federal shield law shouldn't even be necessary. The First Amendment exists for a reason and though its promise of a free press is broad, its scope should include the protection of sources, even confidential ones. \nThe real challenge should not lie in making new laws, but in forcing our lawmakers and courts to respect the ones that already exist -- especially the very first one.