Page 2 of 2 <

Shield Law Perils . . .

Discussion Policy

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

¿ A violent street gang that pirated a religious radio station to broadcast messages to gang members.

¿ Child pornographers who shared information over the Internet.

The shield bill appears to address the first two cases but does not. The bill does not protect people if the government proves they are acting on behalf of a foreign terrorist group or foreign power. But the bill also handcuffs investigators from taking the steps necessary to obtain that proof. The bill does not even purport to exclude domestic terrorists, gangs or pedophiles. No senator or legitimate journalist wants to extend protection to terrorists or other criminals, but such is the vice of a law defining journalism.

Any shield bill raises important questions for our democracy and warrants close scrutiny. Certainly those who advocate a shield law do not wish to compromise national security or public safety. Similarly, those who oppose such a law intend neither to cripple the free press nor to suffocate dissent. Before acting in this sensitive area, Congress should take care that any legislation addresses demonstrated needs and does not create dangerous unintended consequences for national security and law enforcement. Congress -- and the public -- ought to be assured that the people who propose the shield law will themselves obey it. The proposed bill fails all these tests.

The writer is the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

< 2