An Act amending Titles 2 (Administrative Law and Procedure) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in depositions and witnesses, further providing for con . . .fidential communications to news reporters; and making editorial changes.
Summary
HB490 updates Pennsylvania’s shield law for journalists and makes related conforming changes in the interpreter statutes. The bill renames the existing provision from “confidential communications to news reporters” and expands it to cover not only the traditional protection against revealing a source’s identity, but also a qualified privilege for journalists to refuse disclosure of nonconfidential sources and materials. It also adds a court-order process for overcoming that privilege, requiring a party to show that it tried other sources, that the information is available only through the protected person or organization, and that the information is critical to the case.
The bill further clarifies that information obtained in violation of the privilege is inadmissible in proceedings and that no fine or imprisonment may be imposed for refusing to disclose privileged information. It extends the privilege to supervisory or employer entities with authority over the journalist, and it makes editorial changes in Titles 2 and 42 to align interpreter-related confidentiality provisions with the revised reporter privilege language. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB490 would broaden and modernize Pennsylvania’s statutory protections for news-gathering by strengthening the reporter’s privilege in court and administrative proceedings. It affects Title 42’s shield-law provisions and related interpreter confidentiality statutes in Titles 2 and 42, changing how courts handle requests for journalistic information and limiting compelled disclosure of both confidential and certain nonconfidential news-gathering materials. The bill primarily affects reporters, editors, media organizations, litigants seeking evidence, and courts deciding privilege disputes.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported but not unanimously so, indicating meaningful backing for stronger press protections alongside some opposition. The House Judiciary Committee reported the bill out by a narrow margin, and later floor and appropriations votes were close, with the final passage vote also narrowly in favor. No committee transcript was provided, so the record shows support sufficient to advance the bill, but with persistent division among members.
Contention
The main point of contention is the scope of the journalist privilege. Supporters appear to favor expanding protections beyond source identity to include nonconfidential sources and materials, arguing that stronger safeguards are needed for newsgathering and press freedom. Opponents likely object to the broader privilege because it can make evidence harder to obtain in litigation and investigations, especially where parties claim the information is critical to their case. The requirement that courts make specific findings before ordering disclosure suggests the bill tries to balance press protections against access to evidence, but that balance appears to be the central issue dividing lawmakers.
In sentencing, further providing for sentences for second and subsequent offenses; and, in Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, further providing for parole power.
In governance of the system, further providing for costs; in budget and finance, further providing for Commonwealth portion of fines, etc; and, in facilities and supplies, further providing for deposits into account.
In budget and finance, further providing for expenses; in facilities and supplies, further providing for deposits into account; and, in access to justice, providing for performance audit of account.