For years, professional journalists from California have faced some of the strongest protection against legal ramifications when refusing to reveal confidential sources. However, a new federal shield law could change all that and throw journalists, as well as their trusted sources, under the bus.

The Obama administration recently turned its back on S. 448, better known as the Free Flow of Information Act and made changes to the proposal.

If this revised act were to go through, it would severely weaken the proposed shield law and take away virtually any protection journalists should have when refusing to reveal confidential sources. Protecting the identity of these sources is crucial when revealing information that would not be revealed otherwise.

Allowing the federal court system to say that journalists must turn over any and all sources they choose would severely hinder the right to a free press and the dissemination of information American’s deserve to know.

Shield laws have, for many years, been a pivotal part of the free press. They protect journalists and allow us to do our job, which is to inform the public of affairs they have every right to know about even when others believe they should not.

What is really odd about the Obama administration’s new stance on S. 448 is that when President Obama was a senator, he was all for the rights of journalists. During his presidential campaign in 2008, he promised to push for a federal shield law that would do exactly what was proposed before his administration made changes, and that is to protect journalists and their sources, but still protect national security.

Illustration by Jon Harguindeguy For the Daily Titan

The reason for Obama’s decision is that he wants to protect national security and make sure that people with confidential information are not leaking it to the press under the pretense that their names will be kept confidential. The First Amendment has provided journalists with moderate protection for years. But even that is not a sure thing when the legal system has the option to imprison a journalist under contempt of court for not revealing their sources.

There needs to be a guarantee that all journalists will be protected and not be jailed for simply protecting themselves and those who had the courage to step forward and expose misdeeds and corruption. As of now, the strongest defense journalists have is proving that the story was in the public interest, but with the revision by the president’s administration, that defense may no longer be valid.

Judith Miller, a one-time prominent reporter for the New York Times who had access to government officials, spent 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal her sources in a CIA leak case, more commonly know as the Plame Affair. Miller later revealed I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby as her source but only after receiving written permission from Libby to do so.

What this would do is prevent better oversight of the government and its practices, which should be a right of not just the press, but more importantly the people.

Take the Watergate scandal for example. It was one of the most shocking high-profile breaking news cases that this country has ever seen. Imagine if “Deepthroat” would not have come out and leaked information to the Washington Post.

Obama’s new proposed shield law would have probably kept Deepthroat from coming out and, therefore, no one would have known about the Nixon administration’s wrongdoings.

Journalists need the protection of the law to do their jobs effectively and thoroughly. As a member of the Fourth Estate of the United States, a journalist’s job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Without journalists keeping those in power in check, everyone gets screwed.