I READ with great interest, but not necessarily agreement, the Sept. 26 op-ed “A reporter’s privilege for Twitterers’’ by David A. Logan.
I was chief counsel for television reporter Paul Pappas in Branzburg v. Hayes before the US Supreme Court in 1972, and agree that the case produced only “scant guidance’’ on the reporter’s privilege. It accomplished a victory for me, since Pappas never did testify in response to the subpoena.
I have represented many newspapers throughout the United States, with considerable experience on First Amendment privilege of reporters. But I continue to believe that they will live to regret the days when they supported the shield laws.
As is already apparent in the present disagreement between the US House and Senate bills, the resolution will probably cause more future litigation than is necessary or desirable.
I recall its having been said by a distinguished professor at Columbia University School of Law that some reporters would rather go to jail than win the Pulitzer Prize. I think there is much truth to that statement. The Judith Miller case to which Logan refers is probably a good example.
As a matter of reality, the lack of a shield law statute very often is not the impediment to a final news story or journalist’s report. One can usually get the desired result without the help of any shield law.
To seek relief through the legislative process rather than the courts is a mistake.
William H. Carey, New Bedford The writer is a retired justice with the Massachusetts Superior Court. 
