This article deals with the issue of the reporters’ privilege to protect their sources of information, primarily by analyzing the contents of the U.S. federal shield law. On October 16, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, also known as the federal shield law by a vote of 398-21. The Act intends to provide journalists with a privilege, not absolute but a qualified one, as to the sources and information gathered and/or published in the course of journalistic activities. A federal shield law has long been one of the most controversial topics of the federal legislature since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Branzburg v. Hayes decision in 1972. Over the years after the Branzburg case, Senators and Representatives have introduced numerous federal shield bills, but the efforts ended with no fruits until 2007. After passage of the bill in the House of Representatives, scholars and commentators now focus their discussions on the appropriateness of the Act, and thereby want to influence the passage of the bill in the Senate. Proponents of the Act argue that the bill protects journalists’ sources unless there is a strong public interest in compelling disclosure; the bill is carefully balanced - protecting national security and law enforcement while recognizing limited privilege for the journalists; the bill includes special rules for cases involving leaks of classified information and where the journalist witnesses the crime. Most of all, they claim, the bill is not about protecting reporters; it’s about preserving the public‘s right to know. However, opponents of the Act argue that such a federal shield bill does more harm than good to the reporters. They claim that journalism seems to be the only profession that believes adherence to its own ethics may include a duty to ignore the law and enforcement of the law. Those who are against the Act also believe that, once the Act becomes law, reporters will be harassed by the government and forced to testify on their sources more frequently than before. Key words : Free Flow of Information Act, reporters’ privilege, source of information. shield law, right to know As of November 20, 2008, the Senate has not taken any definite actions on the fate of its version of Shield Law (S. 2035). Moreover, there are a lot of remaining issues that should be resolved before the Senate take actions on it. Even though it will be a long way ahead for the Act to become a law, it is now worth analyzing the contents of the Act to have a model of the legislation, if necessary, in Korea. Therefore, we need to closely watch the results of the legislative activities of the U.S. Congress in the upcoming year.

This article deals with the issue of the reporters’ privilege to protect their sources of information, primarily by analyzing the contents of the U.S. federal shield law. On October 16, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, also known as the federal shield law by a vote of 398-21. The Act intends to provide journalists with a privilege, not absolute but a qualified one, as to the sources and information gathered and/or published in the course of journalistic activities. A federal shield law has long been one of the most controversial topics of the federal legislature since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Branzburg v. Hayes decision in 1972. Over the years after the Branzburg case, Senators and Representatives have introduced numerous federal shield bills, but the efforts ended with no fruits until 2007. After passage of the bill in the House of Representatives, scholars and commentators now focus their discussions on the appropriateness of the Act, and thereby want to influence the passage of the bill in the Senate. Proponents of the Act argue that the bill protects journalists’ sources unless there is a strong public interest in compelling disclosure; the bill is carefully balanced - protecting national security and law enforcement while recognizing limited privilege for the journalists; the bill includes special rules for cases involving leaks of classified information and where the journalist witnesses the crime. Most of all, they claim, the bill is not about protecting reporters; it’s about preserving the public‘s right to know. However, opponents of the Act argue that such a federal shield bill does more harm than good to the reporters. They claim that journalism seems to be the only profession that believes adherence to its own ethics may include a duty to ignore the law and enforcement of the law. Those who are against the Act also believe that, once the Act becomes law, reporters will be harassed by the government and forced to testify on their sources more frequently than before. Key words : Free Flow of Information Act, reporters’ privilege, source of information. shield law, right to know As of November 20, 2008, the Senate has not taken any definite actions on the fate of its version of Shield Law (S. 2035). Moreover, there are a lot of remaining issues that should be resolved before the Senate take actions on it. Even though it will be a long way ahead for the Act to become a law, it is now worth analyzing the contents of the Act to have a model of the legislation, if necessary, in Korea. Therefore, we need to closely watch the results of the legislative activities of the U.S. Congress in the upcoming year.

Free Flow of Information Act, reporters’ privilege, source of information. shield law, right to know