by Chris Faraone
Boston's Weekly Dig

Excerpt:

Boston attorney Jeffrey Newman, whose track record includes representing molestation victims in the Catholic Church scandal, hatched the movement to safeguard reporters in December 2004. After convincing New England Cable News programming VP Charles Kravetz to help lead the charge, Team Shield Law sent more than 500 letters to potential press allies. By early January, they were holding large meetings at Channel 5 in Needham to shape their agenda and draw the first legislative blueprints. [...]

"The Globe was basically found responsible and liable for allegations of defamation, even though it never had a chance to defend itself," Newman says. "That was a very telling case. I've been before a number of judges since the Ayash case who have looked at the history and say, 'We don't think there are any special provisions under the First Amendment for your client. Tell me where they are.' And I'm hard-pressed to explain it, since there’s no supporting law in Massachusetts."

So he wrote the law himself. Along with Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association executive director Robert Ambrogi, [New England Cable News programming VP Charles] Kravetz and others, Newman drafted the initial "Free Flow of Information Act." At its core, Ambrogi says, "This is a very pro-journalist bill in its definition of who constitutes a journalist. It would cover bloggers who are engaged in journalism [and] it would cover freelancers. There was certainly a feeling that we wanted to adhere to the First Amendment and protect the right of speech and be as broad as possible in our definitions."

For anyone who "engages in the gathering of news or information; and has the intent to disseminate the news or information to the public," the Free Flow act would protect against state court orders to provide source identities, as well as any notes, pictures or data collected during the research process. The only exceptions would be if reporters know something "necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to public security," or if "the news or information is critical and necessary to the resolution of a significant legal issue." While the legislation might appear timid, advocates say it would be one of the most protective in the country and a major improvement from the current lack of any shield whatsoever.

E-mail this item | Add Your Comments | QuickLink this item: A95594


Journalists' Rights Tracker Archive

View items published between:		and
	(MM/DD/YYYY)		(MM/DD/YYYY)

MAIN | Back to Top