Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Free Flow of Information Act (FFIA), a bill that protects journalists from having to name confidential sources. Although 48 states have their own versions of this “shield law,” this is the first time a mandate like this has been created on a national scale.

But some, like University of Southern California media law professor Jonathan Kotler, are skeptical about its efficacy.

“I don’t think it’s going to be the big fix people think it is,” he said. “Courts have gotten around shield laws for years.”

Kotler also said that the act could clash with the sixth Amendment (the right to a fair trial). In cases involving criminal action, prosecutors and defendants need to identify witnesses in court. 

And in disputes involving the sixth Amendment, the courts always come win, according to Kotler

"The Constitution trumps a statute,” he said. 

The Freedom of Information Act introduces another conflict: in this age of social media where anybody can upload a picture to social media, who is considered a true "journalist?"

To define who can receive protection, the bill uses the term “covered journalist.” To fit this qualification, a reporter must by employed by any organization that “disseminates news and information” through any means. This includes both traditional and new media outlets, and the bill even provides future protection for journalists using technology that has not yet been invented.

Despite the conflicts that may arise, Kotler agrees with the principal behind the bill.

“Any time Congress gives protection to the press it’s a good thing,” he said. 

The bill still has to pass through the full Senate and the House, but President Obama has expressed his support.

 

Reach Staff Reporter Anne Artley here