Abstract
Abstract The Pentagon Papers case leaves open the question of whether journalists can be compelled to disclose the identities of those who reveal classified information to them. This essay considers some of the most enduring arguments for and against a federal shield law. Those who argue against such a law note definitional problems and contend that we must punish leaks given their impact on national security. They argue that institutionalizing the press actually harms the press and that the shield law is unnecessary given current use of technology to identify sources of leaks. Those in favor counter that definitional questions should not be a problem because almost all states have been able to resolve the questions in their laws. Moreover, most leaks do not compromise national security; government secrecy, deceit, and incompetence cause more damage to national security than the press’s reporting of secret information; and without a federal shield law, sources will not provide important information about government misconduct.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
