It's open season on journalists — and by extension, information the government doesn't want people to know.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court snubbed an appeal in the case of two reporters headed to jail for not giving up their sources. Also, a federal appeals court affirmed contempt orders against four journalists who refused to disclose their sources for stories about the nuclear scientist who was an espionage suspect. Wen Ho Lee, who denied he was a spy, is suing the government over what he believes were erroneous leaks to the press. In the first case, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times refused to tell a federal grand jury about their confidential sources relating to the case of a CIA agent's identity being revealed. Unfortunately, Time magazine yesterday capitulated and said it will turn over the notes, apparently against Cooper's wishes.

These two federal rulings send a shiver through newsrooms. Reporters must weigh possible jail time against a promise to keep a source's confidence. And people within government, frustrated that a story is not being told, must consider whether they should shut up rather than trust a reporter's resolve before a prosecutor.

Shield laws that protect reporters exist in some form in most states, but not in federal law.

That is especially troubling, considering how much harder it is to get information out of government. Agencies have reversed more-open policies, including how Freedom of Information Act requests are handled, and have succeeded in keeping quiet such things as who assisted the president in drafting his energy policy.

Some argue reporters should not be treated any differently than the average person who might be subpoenaed. Some stories important to the public might never be told if reporters are forced to reveal their sources. Watergate, for one. Shield laws help reporters be better watchdogs of government, but they should never protect a source who lied.

Though The New York Times is not in contempt because it never published a story, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. says the paper stands beside Miller. When faced with a similar circumstance in the 1970s, the newspaper had to pay "significant fines" and the reporter went to jail for 40 days.

Miller, if she stands firm, will bravely be making that case again.