NEW YORK – It's worth revisiting the status of legislation concerning a shield law to protect confidential sources and information when reporters are subpoenaed to testify in federal proceedings.

Former Army scientist Steven Hatfill is suing the federal government.

The latest case bringing the issue to the forefront has its roots in the fear that gripped the nation back in 2001 when anthrax attacks killed five people. Authorities named former Army scientist Steven Hatfill a "person of interest,” but no charges were filed. Now, Hatfill has a lawsuit pending against the government and a former reporter who followed the case may be headed to jail.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton held Toni Locy, once employed by USA Today, in contempt of court Tuesday for refusing to identify sources for her stories about Hatfill. Locy faces fines of up to $500 each day, escalating to $5,000 a day and possible incarceration.

Hatfill claims the Justice Department violated the federal Privacy Act by giving reporters information about the FBI's investigation of him and ruined his reputation. He was publicly identified by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002.

While one may be able to sympathize with Hatfill, freedom of press advocates are troubled by the judge's contempt order. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in a 1972 opinion, "When neither the reporter nor his source can rely on the shield of confidentiality against unrestrained use of the grand jury's subpoena power, valuable information will not be published and the public dialogue will inevitably be impoverished."

One can think of certain exceptions in which testimony should be compelled if it affects national security and that appears to be addressed, according to authors of the pending legislation.

The House of Representatives passed a so-called "Free Flow of Information Act" last year protecting journalists. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure as well.

But there has been opposition from lawmakers such as Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who wants to keep up the pressure on government insiders who leak stories. It's interesting to note that the other Arizona senator, John McCain, has said in principle that he supports the reporter shield.

Regardless, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office tells me there is no date set for debate.

– Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer

NEW YORK – The paparazzi covering the spectacle that is Britney Spears in Los Angeles are now the target of a proposed new law. The measure introduced by Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine calls for a personal safety zone around individuals targeted by the media.

Britney Spears is swarmed by media.

The so-called "Britney Law" is said to be aimed at protecting celebrities, as well as pedestrians and drivers, who may be put in danger by a horde of photographers. It comes in the wake of Spears' recent trip to a psychiatric hospital in which police enlisted several vehicles and a helicopter to escort her ambulance and shield her from a crowd of photographers. It ended up costing taxpayers some $25,000.

While supported by the Screen Actor's Guild, many in the press including The Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists are concerned about their First Amendment rights and believe it could lead to abuses involving legitimate access to newsmakers.

Police Chief William J. Bratton believes the laws already on the books are enough. California has had an "anti-stalkerazzi" law since 1998 that allows celebrities to sue anyone who invades their privacy. And two years ago the state created a law that imposed increased liability penalties on photographers who impede celebrities or are responsible for car accidents.

While it's highly unlikely many will shed tears for the fate of the paparazzi, who along with magazine publishers and lawyers are raking in millions on the Britney story, more debate is necessary as to whether this proposed measure is necessary.

– Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer