Are journalist shield laws unconstitutional? [View all]

[geek tragedy]

In general, journalist shield laws extend privileges to journalists that allow them to avoid cooperating with civil subpoenas and criminal investigations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States

shield law is legislation designed to protect reporters' privilege, or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process. Currently the U.S. federal government has not enacted any national shield laws, but most states do have shield laws or other protections for reporters in place.

These privileges are not made available to the general public, only to journalists. Note also that these protections do not exist in the absence of legislation--they are not a constitutional right, but rather a creation of statute.

However, when extending a privilege or protection to a subset of the population, that requires defining who is and who isn't eligible.

The sentiment at DU appears to be that it's a violation of the first amendment for the government to define who is and who isn't a journalist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023701887

Which means passing a journalist shield law would be per se unconstitutional, since by necessity it involves a government definition of who is and who isn't a journalist.

So, what to do?

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Extend shield protections to all citizens--no one needs to cooperate with criminal investigations.
	0 (0%)
	No shield protections for anyone. It was right to have Judy Miller sent to the slammer.
	1 (50%)
	Swallow the bitter pill and let the government hash out a rough definition of journalists in order to protect journalists
	1 (50%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll