The Houston Chronicle is right -- defeating this bill for technical reasons is wrong. However, i'd argue that defeating it because it is a bad idea is a better thing.

One of the most egregious and undignified maneuvers occurred on Monday, when a lawmaker used a minor omission in a bill analysis to waylay legislation at the last minute that would have provided limited protections for journalists seeking to keep their sources confidential.

The bill, titled "The Free Flow of Information Act and sponsored by Houston's Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Democrat, and Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, a Republican, had already passed the Senate and was headed for its final legislative hurdle in the House.

Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, acting on behalf of district attorneys who opposed the law, seized on the insertion of a sentence into the bill by committee counsel that was not referenced in the legislative analysis. As a result, the shield law was ruled out of order. Although its supporters have not yet given up on finding an alternate route to consideration, time is running out.

The bill would provide journalists with protections against being subpoenaed by prosecutors to reveal confidential sources except in limited circumstances. It would also require a court hearing where the evidence and necessity for divulging the information would be weighed by a judge and would set out guidelines for jurists to use in reaching their decision. Thirty-three other states and the District of Columbia have similar statutes.

Sen. Ellis expressed disappointment that the effort to pass the shield law had been undercut by such a trivial objection.

"To fight for so long and to move this bill so far and to have it snatched away on something that is completely nonsubstantive is neither good government, nor good for the people of Texas," he said.

Texas media representatives have argued that a shield law is necessary to make it possible for whistleblowers to share information with journalists without the fear that their identity will later be revealed.

However, this bill really only serves the special interests of Big Media (you know, companies like the Houston Chronicle), as it is pretty clear that corporate media will be the only folks that qualify as reportesr under this bill.

\And as I pointed out yesterday, it is the definitions and exclusions that make such laws either dangerously broad or arbitrarily and capriciously narrow -- and in reality serve no public interest at all.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.