Shield Law and “National Security”

Should journalists have the privilege of not testifying in court so that they can protect their sources’ identities? Should network providers have the guts for not revealing their clients’ information when facing the pressure of losing some business?

The current version of shield law which has been reviewing by Congress sounds reasonable. It provides journalists absolute protection when facing a legal demand. However, there is an exception: when involving “imminent and actual harm to national security”, the public interest would outweigh the free flow of information. So, the real issue here is how to decide whether a case meets the criteria of involving “imminent and actual harm to national security”. When a federal prosecutor raised the “national security” issue, Time magazine turned over its reporter Cooper’s notes even though Cooper refused. Time’s action is highly controversial. A more infamous case was the Yahoo and Shi Tao case in 2005. Even though Yahoo is not a traditional media outlet, it is a network which provides news, blogs, and facebook, etc. It is relevant to this discussion.

Mr. Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist, posted a message to a US-based Chinese news website. The information was about how Chinese officials safeguarded social stability during the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. When the Chinese state security department claimed that this message leaked China’s state secrets and harmed the country’s national security, Yahoo provided Shi Tao’s email account information to the Chinese government. Shi Tao was arrested and then sentenced to ten years. Yahoo said it had to obey the law of the country with which it did business. Mr. Shi Tao is still in prison now. (Please see Yahoo and Shi Tao’s case at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4221538.stm; http://ar.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070506140024AAFycoR)

Generally speaking, journalists, the media, and the network providers should balance their professional duties and their civil responsibilities. However, it is always wise to exercise caution about whether the claims of “public interest” and “national security” are used to serve a government’s interest.