Undeserving of a Shield

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.
Sunday, May 11, 2008; Page B06

Arlen Specter's May 5 op-ed, "Why We Need a Shield Law," was a little confusing. Certainly a case can be made for protecting whistle-blowers when they tell the media about gross injustices and crimes. However, when the "whistle-blower" is only advancing his own agenda -- such as I. Lewis Libby, then an aide to Vice President Cheney, talking to reporters about Valerie Plame's work at the CIA -- I do not see the need to protect what could be a criminal act.

If journalists Judith Miller and Matt Cooper had not been compelled to reveal their sources, the public would never have known the extent of the machinations of the vice president's office. An all-encompassing federal shield law would make people like Mr. Libby even less likely to be "chilled," in the words of Mr. Specter, in talking to reporters and would provide them with blanket protection for whatever they said.

VICTORIA TILLOTSON

Washington

The writer is a friend and former neighbor of Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson.


© 2008 The Washington Post Company