The following editorial appeared in the Sacramento Bee on Wednesday, Sept. 16:

A U.S. Senate committee is considering a proposal to ensure that federal authorities exhaust all other means of gathering information before seeking to force journalists to reveal confidential sources. This is a good idea, not just because it protects journalists but because it protects citizens against an overly intrusive federal government and helps ensure that the public learns of government wrongdoing.

At issue is when and how writers, broadcasters or other people who gather and distribute news should be threatened with jail to force them to reveal the name of a person who provided information with an understanding that their identity would remain secret.

Such a shield law can be crucial to making sure that the First Amendment works as the framers intended. The Constitution says that Congress shall “make no law” abridging the freedom of the press. But if federal officials can squelch the release of sensitive information – even if their practices are found to fit within the Constitution – they can have a chilling effect that keeps the public in the dark about government abuses.

The proposal before the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee passed the House in similar form with bipartisan support. It defines a journalist broadly enough to be relevant at a time when news gathering is done not just by professional journalists but also by citizens dedicated to uncovering and sharing information with the community. Yet the proposal is narrow enough that its protections won’t endanger national security or interfere with the criminal justice system.

The shield would apply to any person who regularly conducts interviews, observes events, or collects, reviews or analyzes information about local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest with the intent of disseminating that news or information to the public.

Federal officials seeking to force someone to reveal confidential sources would have to use their subpoena powers as a last resort. But they would have several ways to get such an order.

They could convince a judge that they have exhausted “all reasonable alternative sources.” In a criminal prosecution, they would show that there is reason to believe a crime occurred and that the journalist’s testimony is essential to the prosecution or the defense. In a case of unauthorized disclosure of classified information, federal officials could show that the disclosure will cause significant harm to national security.

The shield would not apply to information necessary to prevent a death, kidnapping or “substantial bodily harm” and could not be used to protect the identity of a suspected terrorist. It would also be null if the journalist in question is suspected of committing a crime or observing one, except when the alleged crime was the act of communicating the information at issue in a case.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Judiciary Committee, has expressed reservations in the past about a proposed federal shield law. Citing California’s own similar law, she has argued for narrowing the federal version to protect national security.

The latest amendments to this bill balance the public’s right to know with the government’s legitimate national security and criminal justice interests. We urge Feinstein and other members of the committee to support the measure and move it to the full Senate for its consideration.