The Obama administration's disregard for constitutional rights is so out of control that even the president himself realizes it, which is why Obama will eventually sign a media shield bill into law, according to U.S. Rep. Trey Radel, one of the measure's principal sponsors.
This bill will be signed into law, no doubt about it, the freshman Republican congressman from Southwest Florida tells Sunshine State News, referring to the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013. I think the president realizes what kind of culture has been breeding under his administration, reaching out to everything from the IRS to the Department of Justice, and he's now taking a step back and saying we need to put this in check.
If passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the president, the bill would, for the first time in American history, create a federally-protected reporter's privilege, protecting journalists from having to disclose their sources. It also would prevent the federal government from forcing communications service providers to disclose journalists' records.
However, the law contains exceptions. A judge may authorize forced disclosure if he finds that it is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism, imminent death, or other significant and specified harm to national security.
The Act, which has already attracted bipartisan sponsorship, is a response to recent revelations that Obama's Department of Justice had secretly subpoenaed the phone records of about 100 Associated Press reporters and a Fox News journalist, in order to trace the source of government information leaks.
I know and understand that a free press is a conduit of free speech, says Radel, who worked in journalism for some 20 years before being elected to Congress in 2012. A free press helps shine light where there's darkness, helps right a wrong, helps expose where there is injustice.
The Act was publicly introduced at a press conference Wednesday by Radel and U.S. Reps. Ted Pole, R-Texas, and John Conyers, D-Mich. A Senate companion is expected to be introduced in the coming days by Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.
Similar legislation has been introduced in previous years, most recently in 2009, when the bill died over concerns following the Wikileaks disclosures and criticisms by journalists and civil rights activists that the proposed law did not go far enough to protect free speech. The 2009 bill contained a much broader national security exemption, and the current proposal only applies to journalists who work for financial gain or livelihood.
Still, something is apparently better than nothing; the 2013 Act is being supported by the National Association of Broadcasters, the Newspaper Association of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Newspaper Guild-CWA, and CBS.
I am so refreshed and excited to hear Democrats start talking about the Constitution, the libertarian-leaning Radel says, while admitting Republicans have also frequently fallen short when it comes to protecting civil liberties. I'm as conservative as you get, but I don't want to see journalists going to jail for an administration that can't protect its own leaks. This is about the way the government is doing business, not a reporter exercising his right of free press and free speech.
Asked what response he had to critics who have argued that a Free Flow of Information Act might threaten national security, Radel's tone quickly turns grave.
Anybody who would say that is probably the same type of person telling you that they want your kid to to go to Syria to go fight in some pointless war, he says solemnly, referring to another area close to his heart: a non-interventionist foreign policy. I believe we should have a large part of our budget devoted to the military, but you know what else I believe in? The Constitution. I'm a very fervent supporter of that.
Reach Eric Giunta at egiunta@sunshinestatenews.com or at (954) 235-9116.
