The need for reporters shield laws like the one currently under consideration in the Kansas Legislature may not be immediately apparent to many observers. For those who don’t understand the connection between such laws and constitutional provisions that protect freedom of the press, a current case in Washington, D.C., offers a vivid illustration.

Last Friday a U.S. district court judge in Washington found former USA TODAY reporter Toni Locy in contempt for refusing to reveal confidential sources from the U.S. Department of Justice that she used in a series of stories five years ago. The judge further set a schedule of fines that will accelerate to $5,000 a day within a couple of weeks and ordered that those fines must come directly out of Locy’s own pocket. She cannot get the money or seek reimbursement from USA Today; even her own mother can’t help her pay the fines.

The judge took this unprecedented, punitive action in spite of the fact that Locy had revealed a number of her sources and others stepped forward. Because she talked to some sources on a regular basis, she said she couldn’t remember everyone who gave her information for these particular stories.

The case before the court involves Steven Hatfill, a former Army scientist who was linked in Locy’s articles to anthrax attacks in 2001. Hatfill, who never was charged in the case, subsequently sought damages for libel and defamation from USA Today and several other publications that carried similar information.

It’s easy to see how the way this case is progressing could put additional pressure on USA Today to negotiate a settlement. In fact, the insistence on identifying every anonymous source may be an attempt to force a larger settlement.

It’s also easy to see how this case could make other news organizations think twice before pursuing stories that require the use of anonymous sources even if those stories involve matters of intense public interest. The coercion tactics being used by this judge could have a chilling effect on the independent news media that is so important to preserving our democratic system.

Shield laws do not allow reporters to withhold the names of sources in every case, but they are an important tool in protecting reporters’ need to use anonymous sources to report on such public interest matters as abuse of government power or a waste of taxpayer money. Without the ability to shield their sources, many reporters wouldn’t be able to pursue such important stories.

Kansas is one of only 16 states that has no shield law. Legislation currently under consideration in the state legislature would aid the judicial system by better defining when sources should be confidential and aid journalists by offering them and their sources some protection when the stories being reported can’t depend only on named sources. Federal shield laws also are under consideration.

The situation currently unfolding in Washington clearly shows how government power can apply crippling pressure, bordering on coercion, to muzzle the reporting of important stories. That may be an accepted practice in a totalitarian regime, but it has no place in a democratic society.