On April 3rd a handful of supporters greeted Josh Wolf as he came out of prison in Dublin, California. He had spent more than seven months in jail for refusing to testify and turn over to federal prosecutors a videotape of a 2005 street demonstration in San Francisco. The prosecutors were investigating injury to a policeman and minor damage to a police car. It is apparently the longest an American journalist has served for protecting his sources and materials.
What makes the case odder is that Mr Wolf, who is 24, is a video-blogger as much as a freelance journalist. Moreover, the material was from a public setting and the sources have scant claim to confidentiality. He could have been protected by California's generous “shield law” for journalists, but the federal government became involved on the thinnest of pretexts: namely, that it partly finances the San Francisco Police Department. This made Mr Wolf feel that though the evidential value of his videotape was low, the federal prosecutors meant to force him to identify the masked protesters before a grand jury. This, he said, would have transformed him into an investigator for the government. So he chose jail instead.
The case raises hard issues. What are the rights of bloggers in an era when almost anyone may claim to qualify for a journalist's protection? What legal privilege do reporters enjoy to keep source material from government's prying eyes? And did federal prosecutors abuse their authority by bringing charges for small municipal offences, thereby deliberately bypassing the state's law shielding journalists?
Mr Wolf's case underscores the reality that journalists—or simply those who behave as if they were journalists, when formally they are not—have few rights to shield themselves from revealing their sources or reportorial material. Although 49 states offer certain rights (Wyomin is the exception), only the barest protection exists at national level. Potential federal legislation, which has bipartisan support, would require prosecutors to show that the information is necessary and cannot be otherwise obtained. The debate is over how broad the shield should be. Apply it too widely and the protection will inevitably be diluted; too narrowly and many eligible people will not be covered, explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer. In 1972 the Supreme Court, in the Branzburg case, said that reporters had no shield. But a concurring opinion contained the remark that the government should show the “necessity” of forcing reporters to testify. Prosecutors have largely accepted this legal gloss, until the recent cases when they have attacked on the press—or on “citizen journalists” like Mr Wolf.
“The whole issue of whether or not I am a journalist is irrelevant: the first amendment was written to protect pamphleteers,” says Mr Wolf. He did not have time to get a card-carrying reporter's job, since he was imprisoned two months after graduating from university. “This was my entry into the world of journalism,” he says, “and a hell of an entry it was.”
注（1）：本文选自Economist, 04/12/2007
注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2003年真题Text 4。
1． What is implied in the first two paragraphs?
[A] The case was not supposed to have lasted for such a long time.
[B] “Shield law” is meant to protect journlist’s privileges.
[C] It is a case about jounalist’s right of protection.
[D] Journalists usually refuse to become government’s investigator.
2． The author quotes Floyd Abrams’s explanation to show that _______.
[A] it is difficult to define a proper “shield” that journalists should be entitled to
[B] the protection should enable journalists to safeguard most resources
[C] the federal legislation is still undergoing the debate on journalists’ right
[D] the protection should be strictly limited to a certain degree
3． Josh Wolf’s attitude towards his case is _______.
[A] indifferent
[B] outrageous
[C] sad
[D] considerate
4． Journalists’ protection rights exist _______.
[A] only at the national level
[B] only at the sate level
[C] clearly at both the national and state level
[D] clearly at the national level and vaguely at the state level
5． The text intends to express the idea that _______.
[A] people should be more concerned about whether they can enjoy jounlists’ protection
[B] the first amendment should be given a clearer explanation on journalists’ rights
[C] the legislation for journalists’ privilege of protecting resources has a long way to go
[D] more campaigns should be launched to protest federal prosecutors’ abusing authority
篇章剖析
本文讨论的是在美国，记者是否应该具有合法保护特权这个问题。第一、二段简要介绍了约什·沃尔夫一案；第三段提出了与话题有关的几个主要问题；第四段从法律上讨论了记者是否享受保护、以及如何享受保护等；第五段是沃尔夫先生对整个事件的评论。
词汇注释
testify [`testifai] v. 证明, 作证 pry [prai] v. 探查
prosecutor [`prCsikju:tE] n. 起诉人；检举人 bypass [`baipB:s] vt. 设旁路, 迂回
freelance n. 自由作家；自由记者 underscore [9QndE5skC:] vt. 划线于...下, 强调
scant [skAnt] adj. 缺乏的,不足的 bipartisan [bai9pB:ti`zAn] adj. 两党连立的
confidentiality [kCnfi9denFE`Aliti]n. 机密性 dilute [dai`lju:t] v. 冲淡, 变淡, 变弱
shield [Fi:ld] n. 防护物, 护罩 eligible [`elidVEbl] adj. 符合条件的, 合格的
pretext [`pri:tekst] n. 借口, 托辞 amendment [E`mendmEnt] n. 修正案
transform [trAns`fC:m] vt. 转换, 改变, 改造 pamphleteer [9pAmfli`tiE] n. 小册子作者