The framers of the constitution knew that a free and unencumbered press was vital component to a successful democracy.
They listed freedom of the press among freedom to exercise religion, freedom of speech and the right to assemble in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Courts have set precedent to protect a phantom right known as "the reporter's privilege" and 34 states have instituted shield laws to protect journalists.
But the State of Kansas - despite being the home of journalistic giants like William Allen White, Daniel Webster Wilder, and David Anthony (brother of Susan B. Anthony), - continues to operate without such laws.
And thanks to a state senator reneging on her promise, Kansas will continue to lag behind.
Apparently, Kansas legislators would rather see principled journalists jailed or fined for contempt of court rather than guarantee their rights to protect sources of sensitive material.
According to SB211, which virtually died for another year in Wednesday's surprising vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, "a journalist cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any state or local proceeding, any information or the source of any such information procured while acting as a journalist."
The bill would provide three exceptions when journalists could be compelled to release privileged information. They include if the material:
(1) is relevant to the controversy for which the disclosure is sought;
(2) cannot be obtained by alternative means; and
(3) is of a compelling and overriding interest for the party seeking the disclosure and is necessary to secure the interests of justice.
The Kansas Press Association has run into several roadblocks in its attempts to get this legislation enacted in Kansas.
But Wednesday's vote appeared to signal the end to the Senate's ability to bottle the bill up in committee and let it see the light of day on the floor of the state senate.
However, according to KPA's Rich Gannon, "Sen. Jean Kurtis Schodorf did not honor her commitment to support the bill and voted against passage."
She has told various media outlets that her change of heart came from testimony in the hearing that the bill did not go far enough to protect "online journalists."
Her logic stream ran dry on that one.
Is it not better to protect all of the journalists mentioned by the bill this year and add to the action in next year's session?
Considering Sen. Schodorf has a brother who is a working television journalist, it would be interesting to discover the real reasons she flipped before she flopped. One can only assume that other opponents in the committee, John Vratil, Dwayne Umbarger, Terry Bruce, or Les Donovan had very "convincing" arguments.
I hope she got something good out of the deal.
Journalists in Kansas will still act out of principle and many would choose to be held in contempt and agree to be be jailed or fined rather than bend the standards by which they gather news.
It is unfortunate that our state has no desire to offer protection from such a fate.
Whether you make a living as a reporter or merely enjoy the work they produce, yesterday's vote was disappointing.
As in the past, the KPA can only chant the rallying cry, "Maybe next year."
