Chicago case shines light on need for federal shield law Inside the First Amendment

Story By Gene Policinski
First Amendment Center vice president/executive director
05.17.09

The debate continues over whether or not a federal “shield law” for journalists
is proper or is even needed — in the Congress, in the courts and even among news
professionals themselves.

A recent federal magistrate’s ruling in Chicago, however, does raise issues that
seem avoidable only if such a law, more accurately termed “reporter privilege,”
was in place to cause courts to at least pause and consider the effects of
subpoenas on the newsgathering process.

The ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys, in the Northern District of
Illinois, states plainly how most observers see the current situation: There is
now no legal shield or privilege in federal courts for journalists wishing to
protect their sources, notes or unpublished material from subpoenas.

The ruling comes in a lawsuit brought by war protester Andy Thayer against the
Chicago police. Thayer claims that a March 2005 arrest for disorderly conduct and
resisting arrest during an Iraq war protest violated his constitutional rights,
and that Chicago police have a long pattern of disrupting such protests.

Local cable-access television journalist Martin Conlisk, who saw and videotaped
parts of the protest, testified in Thayer’s criminal trial. Thayer later filed a
civil lawsuit against the city and police, in part claiming Chicago police have
long used large groups of officers in riot gear to “intimidate both actual and
potential protestors.” City attorneys subpoenaed Conlisk, seeking any video he
might have of “all efforts to stage anti-war marches” beginning in 2003, and for
such protests held anywhere in Chicago.

Keys rejected several claims by Conlisk for shield-law protection, under both
federal and state laws...

Full story click here

Thanks to Greg Boozell of cantv.org for sharing this with the Public Access Community.