Gimme Some Truth

As the Senate debates a press shield law, civil libertarians are understandably concerned about the excessively weak compromise language that seems to be on the table. As ACLU senior lobbyist Terri Schroeder argues:

In recent years, we have seen a troubling increase in the number of journalists who have been threatened with or served time in jail simply for doing their jobs. With historic stories revealing warrantless wiretapping and the CIA’s use of torture, it’s hard to imagine that our government would ever be held accountable for its actions if it weren’t for a free press and its confidential sources.

Unfortunately, as we move closer and closer to getting a shield bill to the Senate floor, the bill is becoming weaker and weaker ... No matter how much Senator [Arlen] Specter and others on both sides of the aisle fight for legitimate protections, some will not be happy until the shield bill is ‘compromised’ into an empty gesture.

Our ability to function as a meaningful democracy depends on our ability to access information that the government may or may not really want us to have. Each major executive branch scandal of the past 40 years, from Watergate to Iran-Contra to Abu Ghraib, became public because journalists made it public. Allow journalists to be prosecuted simply for providing information that those in power would like to keep hidden, and you're creating a system where corruption thrives and free speech dies.

One of the arguments against a meaningful press shield law is that terrorists and rogue nations could potentially use information leaked by journalists as propaganda. The Abu Ghraib photographs, for example, no doubt inspired many to join the insurgency in Iraq--costing the lives of an untold number of American troops. But there are at least four good responses to this line of reasoning:

1. Any information that can be accessed by journalists can also be accessed by spies, so any government that punishes journalists to keep information a secret is only putting a band-aid on a much larger, and potentially much more deadly, national security vulnerability.
2. Do we really want a government whose existence and stability depends on its power to do extremely evil things in secret? What kind of country would we be living in if the government were free to create as many Abu Ghraibs as it wished, with no fear of political consequences?
3. How can citizens vote if they're not given the information they need to make judgments about the values and practices of incumbent administrations?
4. If the government is really leaking sensitive national security information at every turn, why punish journalists for internal government policy failures?

We need a strong and forceful new press shield law that allows journalists to continue to report the news without fear of government harassment, censorship, or imprisonment. Anything less will place our future as a liberal democracy in jeopardy, and our country among the nations of the world that attempt to control the media as a means of retaining power.

Related: A New Sedition Act?