My thoughts of Fitzgerald's Op-Ed.

by SPB

There has some much talk since yesterday's Op-Ed in the Washington Post by Patrick Fitzgerald about the passing of the shield law by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let's examine what the shield law says:

S.2035 : A bill to maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

It says certain persons which sound ambigious. And it refers only news media and not tp freelance journalists, bloggers, or whistleblowers. Fitzgerald's Op-Ed is from an attorney and legal standpoint. His concerns are that this new shield law could hamper any investigation of national security leaks or hamper national security as in the case of Judy Miller. Judy Miller complained about her reporter's privilege to shield her from revealing her sources when she was jailed for 85 days. Yet, in the same CIA leak investigation by Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald never asked reporter Tim Russert to expose his sources when Russert was questioned about his conversation with Scooter Libby. I will take it another step further than Fitzgerald.

This bill was sponsored by Arlen Spector, the same person who sent mixed signals in his decision making in the FISA bill, torture bill, and former AG Alberto Gonzales' testimonies in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. This new shield law leaves questions: If the new media are shielded in revealing their sources, what if those journalist's source or sources committed a criminal act?

I agree with blogger Emptywheel's comment: "the law, the press--are terribly flawed institutions right now." There has to be fairness and balance of both law and press. But, most importantly, fairness with law and first amendment are essential to the justice system. And they must exist on both sides of the coin. True justice can’t exist if law and first amendment only applies to one side.

Have a great weekend, folks!