Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act: A shield law that is working

This dissertation compares and contrasts Illinois' Reporter's Privilege Act with similar laws in 31 states and the District of Columbia. It then analyzes how the Illinois courts have applied the law and assesses what protection journalists have in the state. The dissertation also thoroughly discusses the state of journalistic privilege in both the state and federal court systems and before Congress.; While Illinois' law is considered one of the weaker qualified privilege shield laws in the country, it has served journalists well. The courts have kept the legislative intent of the law in mind---to balance the reporter's First Amendment rights against the public interest in the information sought. In 12 of 14 cases, jurists in Illinois have found for journalists. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that law enforcement officials can not rely on reporters to do their investigative work for them. An appellate court has ruled the objective of the act is "to preserve the autonomy of the press by allowing reporters to assure their sources of confidentiality, thereby permitting the public to receive complete, unfettered information."; The strengths of Illinois shield law are who and what is covered by the act. It includes a broad definition that covers almost all working journalists, full or part-time. It has been interpreted to cover the editor of a medical journal and a book author as well as traditional journalists who work for newspapers and broadcast organizations. The law also covers confidential and non-confidential information. The Illinois Supreme Court has even ruled photographs are a source of information and are therefore covered by the act and do not have to be turned over in connection with a criminal case.; Like many shield laws, Illinois' Reporter's Privilege Act does provide a procedure to divest journalists of their testimonial privilege. That is why it is considered one of the weaker laws. However, the courts in the state have vigorously applied the law. Ultimately, if all other possible sources of information have not been exhausted, jurists have held that journalists do not have to testify or turn over work product, such as notes and videotape, in court cases.