Posted on 07/31/2007 9:40:43 PM PDT by airedale
Rep Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia have introduced a federal shield law which in general I oppose. I wrote him an email indicating a change that I'd like to see if in fact he went ahead with the law. Here were my suggestions:
If you are really going ahead with the shield law then at least change the standard for libel and slander when the media utilizes it. Right now there is a very high bar for someone to win a judgment against the media when the information they provide is wrong and damaging. If I made the comment there is a much lower standard so it's better if I make it to a reporter with a grant of confidentiality. This situation encourages those making false and defamatory charges to get the media to grant them protection under the media shield and removes responsibility from the media to verify the information is correct and accurate. It allows for lots of abuses by the media which we have seen in abundance in recent years.
If the media chooses to shield the source than they should only have the same standard that applies to ordinary citizens for libel and slander. If it's wrong they pay damages including punitive damages instead of the standard which requires that they knew it was wrong and they went ahead and they went ahead with malice. If I really wanted to be tough on them I'd abolish the public figure limitations as well when they used shielded sources.
Those changes would make the media think twice before giving someone a shield and reserve it's use for really serious matters.
They'd still be able to fight the libel and slander charges but the defense would be limited to the information they published was the truth or it wasn't.
I'm not a lawyer so there might be some problems with my suggestion but I know the media would not like it since they'd have to be very careful when they granted someone protection under the shield laws. What do you guys think?
I’m with you!
I haven’t seen this particular bill, but the journalist shield laws I have heard proposed would allow “journalists” not to have to respond to a valid subpoena issued in the course of court proceedings in certain circumstances, whereas the average Joe Citizen would have to comply.
These laws are a terrible idea and are not consistent with our constitutional system. “Journalists” however defined should not be given “first class citizen” rights in a court of law whereas the rest of us have “second class citizen” rights. And who is to say who is a “journalist” entitled to such special rights? If I learn something newsworthy from a government leaker, and post it on FR, am I protected from a court-issued subpoena under this legislation? I doubt it. But a “journalist” would be.
Prosecutors and courts already have developed doctrines and policies in place pursuant to which they avoid seeking information from news organizations if they can first get the information from another source. That is enough, they don’t need more special rights.
“If I learn something newsworthy from a government leaker, and post it on FR, am I protected from a court-issued subpoena under this legislation? I doubt it. But a “journalist” would be.”
And who decides the definition of a “journalist”. That’s the scary part.
Incidentally, the main reason they're pushing so hard for this is because of Dr. Steven Hatfill's lawsuit.
Translation: Propaganda License
The only way they will stop is when their media is ineffective at manipulating public politics.
What we really need is a truth in reporting law to curb the press's over extended 1st amendment "rights."
I think there are both federal and state laws.
The MSM
That and the reporters Fitzgerald pulled in during the Libby case and another case. Also after Fitzgerald success several other federal prosecutors pulled in reporters. There was one about steroids if I remember correctly. The reporter talked because they didn’t want to go to jail in contempt.
In most courts reporters already have extralegal privileges. On the witness stand, or when being deposed, they can invoke “journalistic privilege†and not answer a question. A judge must later decide whether the “privilege†cited by the reporter—ostensibly to protect a news source or other delicate information—is valid or not. The “privilege†exercise can be used for a time to delay or slow down the proceedings. If a reporter writes the irrefutable truth he may encounter some slings and arrows but he will ultimately prevail. The journalists who desire a shield law are the ones who print unsubstantiated rumors or are the recipients of leaks from dubious sources. A shield law will be a license to be sloppy and reckless with the facts.
In another age the whole journalistic community would rally around a journalist who refused to name a source or other information in court. If the reporter went to jail he became a hero to his peers and even to the public. Today the establishment news media is in such public disrepute, no one cares.
I know it is that’s why I want to reduce their other protection if they get the shield law. If they get something wrong and it defames or otherwise injures someone if my suggestion were to prevail then they’d have to pay. Their only defense I’d leave them with is that they told the truth. That wouldn’t even allow them the defense that they told the truth as they knew it.
It wouldn’t protect us against the leakers who give up secret material but it would protect individuals against people with a grudge and sloppy reporting.
I don’t think they should have a shield law to protect journalist for giving up National Secrets and protecting people who gave it to them. I think both of them should be in jail along with their editors and publishers.
They still care and will raise a stink. They didn’t protect Judith Miller that much as a group since she was seen as too close to the Bush administration and therefore was a legit target since she wasn’t a “real journalist.” Just like conservative blacks, latinos or women aren’t real blacks, latinos or women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.