The inevitable possibility that Foxnews.com investigative reporter Jana Winter could go to jail for refusing to reveal her sources describing how law enforcement officers obtained a notebook of James Holmes, the alleged Aurora movie massacre shooter, is alarming.

A Colorado judge is expected to decide Wednesday whether Winter will be compelled to testify and reveal her sources.

Last year, Winter wrote in precise detail how Holmes sent a package to a University of Colorado psychiatrist that included a notebook, “full of details about how he was going to kill people,” according to one of her sources.

Holmes’ defense attorneys subpoenaed Winter to reveal who told her about the notebook, arguing they will not get a fair trial if they do not know Winter’s source.

New York, where Winter is based, has an Absolute Shield Law that provides, well, “absolute” immunity to reporters that are subpoenaed to testify and reveal confidential sources. However, Colorado Shield laws contain exceptions that may compel reporters to testify, or face jail time.

This is my biggest issue with the state shield laws; they vary from state to state and make it difficult on investigative journalists who scour the country reporting on social injustices, corruption, or crime. Colorado is one of 32 states with shield laws protecting reporters, but is one of 15 states without court-recognized privilege. It’s time to have a serious have a heart-to-heart about the role of state Shield laws: they hurt more than help.

You can’t do investigative reporting without investigating. In other words, talk to people that the government may not want you to talk to, or receive pertinent information that the government may not want you to know about. And it defeats the purpose when different states have semi-permeable shields (as evident in Winter’s case and the different shield laws for Colorado and New York).

Relationships are built on trust and with reporters, and that trust falls with sources. Sources choose to remain anonymous for a variety of reasons: fear or threat to personal life, employment or even social standing in the community.

The notion that Winter is even forced to choose between revealing a confidential source from a state (New York) that provides absolute protection and going to jail for information that is now essentially public is mind-boggling.

Everyone remembers the case of Josh Wolf, a blogger who allegedly caught protestors on tape vandalizing a police car, refused to provide the tapes when subpoenaed to testify, and subsequently spent 226 days in jail for refusing to provide information he never had; Wolf never actually shot footage of the vandalized car.

The problem is only exacerbated when the First Amendment rights and ethical obligations of a journalist to not reveal confidential sources far outweigh the need for the information. Did Wolf’s footage even have enough credible evidence to indict the vandals? Holmes’ notebook is not the only piece of evidence against him, and his lawyers are only after the notebook because the DA is seeking the death penalty.

If a federal shield law is not enacted soon, more and more cases involving conflicting jurisdictions will continue to occur. If sources cannot take a journalist’s word that their identity will be kept anonymous, they won’t talk.

Compelling journalists to reveal whom they received confidential information from creates a chilling effect on news outlets’ ability to inform the public; sources can no longer trust the media, and the media can no longer provide the trust needed to get crucial information.

We need a comprehensive shield law that protects all journalists at the federal level or no shield law at all.

How would Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein ever expose the Watergate scandal without confidential sources? How did muckrakers ever push for reform without the help of informants?

Freedom is never really free, but a shield should always be bullet proof.