Shield laws struggle to appropriately define “journalist.” Compare and contrast at least two ways states define those protected by their shield law to discuss this difficult definition and to provide reasoning to support what you believe a good shield law should do.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers should include the following points: (1) Minnesota’s broad definition of anyone “directly engaged” in gathering and distributing “information … to the public.” Strength: broad protection for bloggers, freelance writers, etc. Weakness: it may shield too much information from disclosure to best serve the justice system. (2) Some states shield only full-time “journalists.” Strength: a narrow definition may encourage vigorous application of the shield to those truly working to provide news in the public interest. Weakness: it excludes all those who today post videos and blog breaking news from around the world. (3) A “good shield law” should support the freedom of the press by preventing police and prosecutors from using those who gather and disseminate important information to the public as an extension of the justice system. On the one hand, a good law should protect all those who provide this information service and it should establish that newsgatherers are not servants of the government. On the other hand, a good shield law must acknowledge and support the responsibility of those with direct information essential to the justice system to provide evidence. Determination of the proper outcome may always require deep analysis of the specific facts and a very careful balancing, but we know that government has a tendency to exaggerate the risks (of failure to testify) and to rush toward overregulation (contempt citations). Therefore, the presumption of the law should be to protect the privilege unless compelling evidence overrides the presumption.