Texas Shield Law for Journalists

Rep. Aaron Pena has proposed HB 188, a shield law for journalists. The bill was heard in the Judiciary Committee on April 18. I didn't attend the hearing, since the bill is not one that I would normally track, and I haven't listened to the broadcast, since I'm using a dial-up connection (broadband is too expensive for a retired Prince and the bride-who-works-for-a-nonprofit).

Having said that, I still (of course!) have an opinion. Or at least some pressing questions. As I read the bill, it really doesn't cover the kind of situation that we see with the Valerie Plame case. In that case, a federal law against revealing the name/identity of a U.S. spy is prohibited, but someone at the White House did so, telling several reporters Valerie Plame's name and identifying her as a CIA operative. This was done for political reasons. The actual investigation by the federal prosecutor seems to be over, but there have been no public announcements that tell us what the results are. The reporter who actually revealed Plame's identity seems not to be suffering any ill consequences of his bad act, but two others, facing jail time for not revealing their sources, are appealing to the Supreme Court.

I've written about the Plame case before. It just really irks me, and not merely because it all arose for political reasons. As much as I disdain President Bush and his administration and pretty much all he stands for and just about everything he has done as president, the issue for me is something else altogether.

The First Amendment protects freedom of the press. More than that, it tells us that one of the core values of our nation is that the press be free to speak the truth, that our democracy depends upon that. For someone like Robert Novak to toss that core value aside for purely partisan reasons, to do so in conspiracy with others, is an attack on the Constitution and our nation. Now to hide behind that same First Amendment and claim immunity from revealing his co-conspirators is a abominable act. And, oh, yeah, by the way, people's lives were jeopardized because of his criminal act, a career was trashed, national security was damaged, and we're still losing American lives because he was party to a conspiracy to dupe the American public about the justifications for war.

I guess you could say that I feel rather strongly about this issue.

And, yet, I can see the need for a shield law in Texas. My question is this. Let's pretend for a moment that the Governor makes a speech about an issue and includes incorrect information. Let's pretend that someone had already given him the correct information and, upon hearing the incorrect information in the speech, chooses to publish the correct information on her own via an op ed. Suppose then that the Governor, unhappy with that, decides to take retribution by discrediting the op ed writer and, in the course of doing so, knowingly reveals that the op ed writer's spouse is an undercover narc for one of our regional drug task forces--and reveals his identity. What then? If a reporter participates in that kind of partisan activity, committing a crime in the process, would the proposed shield law protect him/her? Should it? Or should I just get over it and accept the fact that a higher principle is at work because, even though it might let one scumbag get away with trashing the Constitution, it's important to maintain that higher principle?

I guess I've answered my own question. The higher principle should win. But, still, I am just so irked with Robert Novak. I hope he gets a pimple in a tender place.