This allows you to publish anything at all without fear of reprisal.
It's very hard to apply pressure to a blog poster when you can't find out who s/he is.
Posted on 08/10/2013 12:14:18 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Legislators are still trying to put together a national "shield" law for journalists (this is the third such effort at a national level) and, as usual, are bogged down in a semantic debate about who should qualify for these protections. Despite "freedom of the press" being hardwired into the system and the fact that a government effort to protect journalists from its own actions (seeking to identify whistleblowers and sources in order to punish them or shut them up) lies somewhere between "ironic" and "disingenuous," the pursuit of a credible "shield" law continues.
The bill's definition of "journalist" seems straightforward enough.
The bill defines a journalist as a person who has a "primary intent to investigate events and procure material" in order to inform the public by regularly gathering information through interviews and observations. It also adds this stipulation, which is a bit more troublesome. The person also must intend to report on the news at the start of obtaining any protected information and must plan to publish that news. I can see this stipulation working against whoever the government feels is worthy of the title "journalist." News develops. It seldom has a distinct starting point. Of course, if someone is a journalist, it stands to reason that they're always "planning" to publish their findings. But that might be a lot harder to prove when the government starts slinging subpoenas.
If someone sends a tip to a journalist, it may not be immediately evident that it is newsworthy. It might be some time before it's determined to be important, newsworthy and its source in need of protection. It's a strange stipulation and one that seems to poke some compromising holes in the "shield."
But onto the "who's really a journalist" argument. Some elected officials feel the language in the bill isn't specific enough. One in particular, Dianne Feinstein, repeated the stupid but inevitable phrase that always accompanies discussions related to shield laws: Feinstein suggested that the definition comprise only journalists who make salaries, saying it should be applied just to "real reporters." This is nothing new for Feinstein, who's (along with Sen. Dick Durbin) previously made the argument that acts of journalism can only be performed by major news agencies, cutting everyone else out of the protective loop. This is a protective move based partially on ignorance and partially on the reality that major news networks are easier to control, seeing as most aren't willing to give up access to the Beltway by pissing off its residents.
Sadly, this sort of reactionary ignorance isn't limited solely to government representatives. This same sort of statement has been made by published authors to demean the self-published and by old school journalists to demean bloggers, serial Tweeters and pretty much everyone not associated with a sinking masthead. Whenever someone assumes they're capable of determining who is or isn't a real whatever, they're usually speaking from a position of privilege, one that can only be maintained as long as the status remains quo.
The same goes for government officials arguing over the definition of "journalist." It's someone who performs the act of journalism. It's as simple as that. But if you accept this definition, then you put the government at a greater "risk" of not being able to pursue and punish those who expose its wrongdoing. Feinstein makes this governmental fear explicit in another comment. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., wondered whether it could be used to provide protections to employees of WikiLeaks, an organization that allows anonymous sources to leak information to the public.
"I’m concerned this would provide special privilege to those who are not reporters at all," she said. Two things to note: One, the government would hate to see people like Snowden or Manning go unpunished because someone at Wikileaks was able to deflect subpoenas and court orders with these protections. Second, this isn't just a government push -- the news industry itself has expressed a willingness to sacrifice Wikileaks in order to expedite passage of a shield law.
It seems rather unlikely the government would extend this protection to entities like Wikileaks (especially not with major news agencies on board with selling out Wikileaks, etc.), but at least Sen. Schumer pointed out that Feinstein's belief that "real" equals "drawing a salary" was a very ignorant take on the current reality. "The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and we’ve ensured that," Schumer said. "But there are people who write and do real journalism, in different ways than we’re used to. They should not be excluded from this bill." If this bill is ever going to provide real protection for journalists, it will first have to recognize that journalism isn't defined by the journalist's employer, paycheck or association with a large media company. It's an act and it can be performed by nearly anyone. More importantly, the bill should be equally as concerned with building in strong consequences for government actions that undermine this protection. Without these, entities like the DOJ will hardly be dissuaded from using "unofficial channels" to seize phone records or trace email conversations in order to hunt down protected sources.
The problem here...is that it’s not really the government’s job to go and define work, professions, or status.
Will we now ask to have a defined piece of legislation for bounty hunters, septic tank installation guys, farmers, orange-pickers, Texas honky-tonk bartenders, DJ’s, meth lab technicians, magicians, Yankee 3rd basemen, lousy TV actors, gameshow hosts, cattle ranchers, trailer park hosts, or Senators?
If this is going to be a priority...then we probably need to create a new branch of the government, and give the daily job of writing job descriptions, and expect 400,000 pages of text each week.
This allows you to publish anything at all without fear of reprisal.
It's very hard to apply pressure to a blog poster when you can't find out who s/he is.
No Hunter S. Thompsons wanted by the left, if it includes Michael Yons.
I am so hidden that on some days even I do not know who or where I am. /S
lol...that’s good :-)
You mean get payed under the table to distort, lie, and support rats and thier agenda
REAL SENATORS ARE SENILE IDIOTS LIKE FEINSTEIN AND JOHN MCCAINE!!!
But medal of freedumb recipient Okra Winfrey is a journalist?
Babs—like Dingy Harry and his Magic Negro dialect comment—trying to convince us that 2+2=5.
Theycanbothblowme.
The left just can’t stand being exposed by “real” journalists.
There is no such thing as THE PRESS in the sense that term is used by elitist Progressives today — some sort of elite group whose members are allowed preferential treatment under law. In the Constitutional sense, “the press” is a technological device for disseminating information.
One cannot be a “member” of the press. One can only have access to a press.
Any device which enables one to state and publicize one’s views is a “press,” whether it be moveable type, offset, TV, radio, or the Internet. We all have free access to “the press,” meaning we have the right to pay any provider who wishes to sell us access to publicize our ideas.
In this regard, no CBS anchor has anymore claim to special treatment for being part of “the press” than does any blogger.
Why are our legislators trying to limit Freedom of Speech (outside of “Fire” or “shooter” in a theater)?
Even before the internet the press could not be defined by employer or paycheck because there were dozens of freelance reporters that were regularly published. They were paid by the story.
If Feistein had her way being a reporter would become a licensed profession complete with required education andcertification.
Another attempt by our legislators to add to the web of tens of thousands of laws no citizen has the time to read or contemplate but which can be use arbitrarily by the state to crush any individual who stands against tyranny.
We need fewer laws and more common sense, not more laws driven by a political agenda.
Every job in America would have to detailed to determine equitable pay.
This law was passed and highly touted by the Demon Rats early in O-nada's first term yet remains largely unimplemented awaiting the right crisis.
Liars draw salaries, too. There are 500 some odd in Washington DC doing such right now.
I am all for this effort!
Curiously, I was JUST TODAY hired by LazamaBlogs, Inc.
My salary is $0.01 a year.
I QUALIFY!
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.