One of the things I've disagreed with Mike Pence on is his support of a national shield law for journalists. Here's what I said last year:
Giving journalists a shield law is wrong for a couple of related reasons, as noted here before. 1. Who is a “journalist” these days? Why should someone who gets a paycheck from a newspaper get any more protection than someone who dispenses useful information gratis on a blog? 2. How is “the press” supposed to be the watchdog of government if it lets government define who is a member of the press?
Those problems are now being felt in New Jersey, which has its own shield law. Shellee Hale posted some information about a company as a comment on somebody's Web site, and when she was sued, the company demanded her sources of information. She declined, saying her sources were protected under the shield law. But a lower court and an appeals court have both ruled against her. Because she had "no connection to any legitimate news publication," the lower court said, her investigations weren't journalism. And here's the appeals coourt, in upholding the lower court:
"Simply put, new media should not be confused with news media," wrote Superior Court Appellate Judge Anthony J. Parrillo.
The main problem with a national shield law is that, like the state law, it can be interpreted to fit yesterday's arrangements, not the new reality of journalism.
