Federal Shield Laws

LOS ANGELES- A federal shield law protecting journalists from revealing their sources would increase the flow of information said Lance Williams, in a panel discussion, at the University of Southern California campus on Friday.
Having stronger shield laws would positively impact the world of reporting by giving the public more independent access and obtain information other than from officials, said Williams.
Williams, a journalist, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for refusing to reveal a source in the BALCO investigation but avoided the term when an attorney pleaded guilty.
Williams wasn’t the only panelist to be sentenced to jail.
Panelist Judith Miller said via telephone that “without this bill, every prosecutor could go after us…we need this bill now.”
Miller, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, is in Dubai reporting on another story and communicated to the audience and panel via telephone. She served 85 days in jail for refusing to name a source in the Scooter L. Libby case.
Perhaps Congress heard the pleas from Miller and Williams because earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a shield law bill and the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a shield law bill.
The House passed a veto proof bill, 398-21 that would protect journalists from
revealing confidential court cases in most federal cases.
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed its advancement 15-2 that would protect reporters from revealing sources and would not allow prosecutors to file charges on unpublished information.
In both bills, sources must be identified if the information results in “imminent and actual harm” to national security.
Three of the four panelists were pleased with the actions of congress but panelist Josh Wolf is opposed to the language of the two bills.
“These bills do not protect student-journalist, bloggers and citizen-journalists,” said Wolf.
Both bills state that a journalist is someone whose primary income comes from reporting.
“If you take the strongest elements of both bills than an effective bill will be in place…but with the language of the bill as constructed, it would be better to have no shield law than these bills,” said Wolf in an interview after the discussion.
Wolf, 25, is a video blogger who served 226 days in prison, the longest prison sentence for refusing to give the police videotapes during a 2005 demonstration. Wolf is also a running for Mayor of San Francisco.
An issue that all panelists agreed upon is that if the shield law was enacted it would not put journalists above the law. An issue written about by author Norman Pearlstein, who was referenced in the discussion.
“Freedom of the press is in the first amendment of the Constitution, and is a
unique form of civil disobedience…besides the three other panelists were sentenced to jail,” said panelist Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr, attorney at law, in response to that issue.
The discussion was forced to end after 70 minutes to allow people to attend other sessions. The event had about 60 people.
The panel took place in the Annenberg auditorium on the USC campus as part of the California First Amendment Coalition presentation on Free Speech and Open Government Assembly.
###

Why all the hype for Sunday's Game?

So for those of you that do not watch ESPN or any sports related channel or read any sports pages there is a much hyped game in the NFL being played on Sunday featuring the last two undefeated teams, the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts. The first in league history that two undefeated teams met this late into the season.

This game has been dubbed by many as "Super Bowl 41 1/2" but lets just hold on for one second. The loser of this game will still be playing next week. These two teams will still be number 1 and 2 in all power rankings and oh this game won't change anybody's opinion on who will actually win the super bowl.

Suppose you're a Colts fan and the Cotls lose. I gurantee that the arguements made will be that both Marvin Harrison and Tony Ugoh are injured, so the Colts weren't at full strength.

Conversly, if you're a Patriots fan and the Pats lose then I can hear it now, "We were playing at the RCA Dome (In Indy)" said every Pats fan. I bet Skip Bayless will probably say some convulated argument that the Patriots were partying with the Red Sox this week, if they lose.

So yes, I will be watching this game just like everyone else but honestly think about it-will this game really change anyone's opinion?