The state of Wyoming currently lacks a shield law– a major problem for journalists, their sources, and the general democratic system of checks and balances established in this country.
The cowboy state currently joins the minority of states without some form of a shield law, which in its simplest terms, gives journalists the ability to refuse subpoenas– a court order to turn over information and documents – to reveal their confidential or anonymous sources.
This is important to help protect the identity of individuals who may face retaliation for speaking with the press.
“You know, people tend to think of shield laws as protecting journalists, and it does protect journalists, but it also protects the sources because their identities aren’t being revealed,” said Joshua Wolfson, Editor In Chief for the Casper Star-Tribune.
“As a result of that, it really benefits the public ‘cause it means more watchdog and investigative stories get told, and you hear more about your government malfeasance or problems in your community.”
Within journalism there is a common philosophy that reporters should serve as the final check and balance for the people’s interest, acting almost as another branch or a fourth estate for those under the protection of organizations and governments.
Journalists can also address the wrongdoings of people in positions of power and report it to the general public.
Without protections and the ability to advocate on behalf of these issues, the people lose the power to influence the actions of powerful individuals, risking the integrity of the entire democratic system.
Take the interviews of whistleblowers or survivors of trauma for example. Individuals who do not feel safe coming forward in a society where journalists cannot provide anonymity could result in loss of one’s job or, in more extreme circumstances, their freedoms or even life.
This directly conflicts with journalistic practices and ethics as journalists often provide anonymity to those who have experienced extreme personal trauma from receiving further trauma with the publication of their name.
Since no such laws are enacted in Wyoming, journalists who refuse to turn over confidential information for the protection of their sources could be penalized with serious jail time for contempt of court.
“Without a shield law, I think a journalist has to be prepared if they’re protecting anonymous sources to potentially go to jail over that,” said Wolfson. “And I don’t think anyone really should be in that position.”
This is not to say there haven’t been attempts in Wyoming to create a shield law despite the current political climate. In 2021, Wyoming House Bill 31 failed due to a lack of clarity on what defined a journalist.
Wolfson, who testified in favor of the Wyoming House Bill 31, feels the reasoning behind rejecting Shield Laws is misinformed.
Although the protection of a shield law is often described as a journalistic privilege, it can be argued that it is more of a right promised by this country’s constitutional idealism of free speech.
“I hear against shield law critics is that you don’t need it and why, why should journalists get special protections,” he said. “But I think that has it wrong because this isn’t really about protecting journalists, but it’s really protecting the public’s right to know, and I think people need to think about it that way.”
There are still downsides to enacting shield laws. They can become problematic when shield laws protect individuals threatening violence against a community, but laws enacting across the country have found ways to combat this by allowing authorities to handle these threats.
Many hope Wyoming House Bill 91, which was recently submitted to the house speaker on Jan. 10, 2023, will bring this discussion back to the floor and find middle ground for these concerns.
The enactment of a federal shield law is unlikely to happen because there are so many variations of shield laws that politicians would be unlikely to compromise on one unified format– though there have been attempts as recently as 2021.
With an increasingly contentious relationship between politicians and the media, the likelihood drops even further.
It is understandable that politicians or those in power that have abused their stance do not want further protection for those who may speak against them or their cover-ups.
This is why it is even more critical that remaining states without a shield law, like Wyoming, should pursue legislative protection at a state level. It would give protection not only to journalists and their sources, but also the democratic system, as the federal system has been unable to do so.
