Wow... George Orwell Would Be Proud... The "Free Flow" Of Information Act...

[WillyT]

“Free Flow of Information Act” Targets Independent Journalism
James Tracy - Activist Post
Tuesday, September 17, 2013

<snip>

The fact that the US Senate is now defining what a journalist actually is sets a dangerous precedent threatening the present marketplace of ideas that in recent history has been greatly expanded by the internet.

According to the text of an amendment sponsored by Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin to the proposed “Free Flow of Information Act” (PDF): http://www.spj.org/pdf/s-987-ffia-schumer-graham.pdf that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, only salaried journalists will be given the free press protections guaranteed to all US citizens by the Constitution.

Under such a law presumably only the news reporters and analysts employed by moderate-to-substantial revenue-generating news entities are regarded as “legitimate” journalists. This is because the Feinstein-Durbin amendment’s wording is especially vague on exactly what type of news organization the writer needs to be affiliated with to be able to comment and report freely.

The major concern with this move is twofold. First, it is fundamentally unconstitutional. The First Amendment unambiguously states that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If such legislation achieves passage...

<snip>

More: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/free-flow-of-information-act-targets.html

[NuclearDem]

1. Oh, DiFi. Is there anything you won't do to piss off liberals?

[woo me with science]

3. Not just liberals.

AMERICANS.

This is fascism. This is the murder of our Constitution.

[polichick]

54. Yep - ya beat me to it!

[pscot]

6. She's a goddamned menace to society

[LuvNewcastle]

7. With Democrats like her, who needs Republicans?

[FiveGoodMen]

16. I can't understand why Dems keep voting for her

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Because LA is not close enough to San Fran

Less vote for her the closet you get to San Fran

[FiveGoodMen]

61. So the Dems in LA are as Right-Wing-Worthless as she is?

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. No, they just did not have her in city government

She was horrid. So they see a D and assume she is a democrat

[petronius]

181. It was the same pattern in the 2012 primary, according to our Secretary of State

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf/70-us-senate-formatted.pdf

Among all Senate candidates, the Feinstein vote was:

San Francisco - 79.0%
Los Angeles - 56.2%
San Diego - 42.5%

If you split out just those votes that went to Democratic candidates, she got:
San Francisco - 92.9%
Los Angeles - 88.9%
San Diego - 84.9%

So it seems (very very coarsely speaking) that she gets less popular as you head down the coastal counties, not more...

[JDPriestly]

82. Because Republicans vote for her and that is how she gets elected.

She gave a speech at a state convention some years ago. It was the least well received of all the speeches -- to an embarrassing point. But she has the votes at the polls. No one dares to run against her.

[FiveGoodMen]

85. Don't the republicans have a republican to vote for?

I mean an official, registered republican.

[JDPriestly]

132. A lot of them vote for Feinstein. Whether a plausible Republican runs depends on the election.

But why should any Republican who can win an election run against Feinstein? She is already Republican enough -- except on gun issues. But on private contracting and national security issues, she is more Republican than most Republicans.

[Xithras]

133. Lol. It's California. No.

Voting for a Republican in California is like voting for a Green. It may be nice to stand on principles, but numerically you have no chance at actually winning.

[Xithras]

130. Republicans do NOT vote for her.

I live in one of the reddest parts of the state, and she's pretty much considered to be an incarnation of Satan herself by our local Republicans. In contrast, the Democrats merely dislike her.

DiFi maintains control because of Willie Brown. The Republican Party holds no statewide offices in California because they are such a minority, so the state is solidly under the control of the Democratic Party. Willie Brown still exerts an enormous amount of power in the state party and is a longtime friend of Feinstein.

One of Brown's longstanding rules states that, if you run against a sitting Democrat who is in good standing with the party, you will be blacklisted from party support FOREVER, for ANY race. Running against his chosen candidates is the kiss of death. The party incumbent will have the official support and funding from the state party, relegating you to a grassroots campaign at best. The simple fact that you ran will end your career.

Feinstein will have that seat for as long as she and Brown want her to have it. Challenging her would be the kiss of death to any Democrats political career.

My expectation is that she will stay in that seat until 2018, when it will be handed off to another Willie Brown protege, a guy named Gavin Newsom. You've probably heard of him once or twice.

[BillyRibs]

195. MONEY!

She has a bottomless war chest and a superior Propaganda Machine.

[merrily]

27. Damned liberals, always defending and protecting the Constitution, even though

their job does not require that they swear to do so.

[lark]

55. Shit, she doesn't give a fig about liberals.

She only cares about how much money she and her husband can derive from any bill. She will support anything that she can use to that end - including any war/police action/military response that comes down the pike. She's one of the many Dems that aren't Democratic at all, just shills for the 1%, incuding themselves.

[2banon]

111. +++++++++++++++ n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. The very worst of the Democratic party embodied in one Senator. n/t

[Fuddnik]

17. Durbin has turned out to be a bit of a dick too.

Teamed up with Depends McCain for some pretty bad NDAA provisions.

Now this.

[leveymg]

29. On military/intel/foreign policy, Durbin is a disappointment

As one would expect, he's okay on domestic social and economic issues.

[merrily]

74. Really?

[leveymg]

76. How do you mean, "Really?"

[merrily]

115. I mean I'm surprised.

Hence the question mark.

I can't say that I had any specific vote or votes in mind. I just have a recollection of not liking his positions when I hear or read about them. I did not separate them, in my mind, into domestic and foreign, though.

[merrily]

32. Just one? Have you checked the yeas and nays on the Patriot Act?

Hell, even a Republican SCOTUS declared several provisions of the POS unconstitutional.

See also: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/15/18277829-white-house-renews-push-for-media-shield-law

[questionseverything]

162. "Stop us before we subpoena again."

Regardless, given this week's news, the stage is set for an interesting fight. The White House, obviously aware of the AP mess, is effectively saying the administration will continue to act as far as it can within the law, but it also wants to see the law narrowed to prevent future controversies. Or put another way, "Stop us before we subpoena again."


stuff like this makes me sad

[merrily]

166. I don't think the new bill will stop them.

If I understand it correctly, it has a national security exception to the "shield." And that exception was proposed before any judge on the FISA court even murmured to the press that citing national security was not going to work forever. My guess is that courts will continue to give that claim on the part of the government great deference.

[Egalitarian Thug]

183. Not the only one by far, but pretty close to the perfect representation of a thoroughly, blatantly

corrupt politician sitting in a safe seat because her constituents are too dumb to notice how much she steals every year.

Who says crime doesn't pay? Nothing I know of pays so well with so little effort.

[nvme]

206. no two others come to mind

Ben Nelson of Nebraska (retired), and the other JOe Lieberman they and DIFI represent the ugliness.

[Egalitarian Thug]

213. I didn't mean to imply in any way that she is alone or even the worst.

All of the republicans and 90% of the Democrats and even half of the "others" could make the world a better place by committing suicide.

[Octafish]

4. Gee. Liberal Democrat stalwarts would rather protect the Banksters, Warmongers and Traitors...

...instead of the People's Right to Know.

Interesting.

[geek tragedy]

5. This deals with PRIVILEGES not rights accorded to journalists.

There is no first amendment right for anyone to refuse to cooperate with a criminal investigation or subpoena.

Also, if we adopt your approach, that means no one has to cooperate with subpoenas or investigations.

[Enthusiast]

10. Why are you here?

If you believe such tripe why do you hang out on DU?

[geek tragedy]

11. Why can't you articulate an intelligent argument against what I just said?

To put it another way:

To whom should this legislation apply, if not only people the government considers journalists?

[WillyT]

12. Ya See... THAT Was A Major Point Of The First Amendment... The Government Does NOT Get To Decide...

Who Is, Or Isn't... A Journalist

That was probably inspired by this guy:

Thomas Paine (January 29, 1737 [1] (NS February 9, 1737) – June 8, 1809) was an English-American political activist, author, political theorist and revolutionary. As the author of two highly influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution, he inspired the Patriots in 1776 to declare independence from Britain.[2] His ideas reflected Enlightenment era rhetoric of transnational human rights.[3] He has been called "a corsetmaker by trade, a journalist by profession, and a propagandist by inclination".[4]

Born in Thetford, England, in the county of Norfolk, Paine emigrated to the British American colonies in 1774 with the help of Benjamin Franklin and he arrived in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were the powerful, widely read pamphlet Common Sense (1776), the all-time best-selling American book that advocated colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and The American Crisis (1776–83), a pro-revolutionary pamphlet series. Common Sense was so influential that John Adams said, "Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain."[5]

Paine lived in France for most of the 1790s, becoming deeply involved in the French Revolution. He wrote the Rights of Man (1791), in part a defence of the French Revolution against its critics. His attacks on British writer Edmund Burke led to a trial and conviction in absentia in 1792 for the crime of seditious libel. In 1792, despite not being able to speak French, he was elected to the French National Convention. The Girondists regarded him as an ally. Consequently, the Montagnards, especially Robespierre, regarded him as an enemy.

In December 1793, he was arrested and imprisoned in Paris, then released in 1794. He became notorious because of The Age of Reason (1793–94), his book that advocates deism, promotes reason and freethinking, and argues against institutionalized religion in general and Christian doctrine in particular. He also wrote the pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1795), discussing the origins of property, and introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income. In 1802, he returned to America where he died on June 8, 1809. Only six people attended his funeral as he had been ostracized for his ridicule of Christianity.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

[geek tragedy]

14. So, journalist shield laws are unconstitutional then.

If the government isn't allowed to define who is and who isn't acting as a journalist, then it can't pass legislation extending them privileges from cooperating with criminal probes not available to all citizens.

Which means you probably want to rethink the basis for your criticism.

[WillyT]

18. From the article at the OP...

only salaried journalists will be given the free press protections guaranteed to all US citizens by the Constitution.

Under such a law presumably only the news reporters and analysts employed by moderate-to-substantial revenue-generating news entities are regarded as “legitimate” journalists. This is because the Feinstein-Durbin amendment’s wording is especially vague on exactly what type of news organization the writer needs to be affiliated with to be able to comment and report freely.

The major concern with this move is twofold. First, it is fundamentally unconstitutional...

[geek tragedy]

24. Shield protections are not granted by the constitution. Otherwise there would be no need

for this statute.

I take it you oppose shield laws as a category--only way your argument is halfways coherent.

And that you oppose this bill, and thus support the current system that fails to protect any journalist from being forced to cooperate with federal investigations.

[merrily]

35. Freedom of the press is in the Constitution.

[geek tragedy]

40. That doesn't contradict what I'm saying nt

[merrily]

43. You are merely wrong about that.

[WillyT]

80. Some Of What I Worry About Here...

On Thursday, the Senate voted on how to define 'journalist'. In a 13-5 vote on the Free Flow of Information Act, they determined a "covered journalist" as "an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information." While many Mainstream Media outlets support the law , it does little to benefit the freelancers who frequently provide robust coverage of under-reported stories. Further, it specifically targets those who publish in what some members of Congress would deem questionable outlets, such as watchdog groups or independent blogs. It's worth noting that the new law would not necessarily cover an independent journalist like Alexa O'Brien, who almost singlehandedly ensured in-depth investigative reporting on the Chelsea Manning trial. Ironically, major news outlets that couldn't bother to send a reporter to court frequently cited much of O'Brien's 'blogging.'

Anyone not on an approved payroll who performs an act of journalism is in danger under the falsely labeled "Free Flow of Information Act", which is quickly making its way into law. Specifically to the FFIA, the individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 years, or for at least three months within the last five years. If the criminalization of independent reporting succeeds consider for example what it will mean in conflict zones...

And...

Neither group addresses the Senate's version of the act's muddled definition of who constitutes a 'journalist' and both avoid any discussion of the need for such a law to protect journalism. Without a union, guild affiliation or an accredited paycheck freelancers, independents, bloggers and self-declared journalists -- even those first-timers reporting from conflict zones or under-reported territory who might find publication in mainstream outlets -- are not protected. In fact, the law would do little to protect established journo's like James Risen or AP's newsroom phonelines, depending on how the government chooses to interpret its own loose definitions.

If the government truly wants to support a free press, they would do well to remember that Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint. The First Amendment and the Freedom of Press is not just for those with journalism degrees and a paycheck, but for all citizen's right to publish. Our government needs to craft a law that protects acts of journalism rather than targeting the messengers and intimidating sources.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tricia-todd/dismantling-the-first-ame_b_3918368.html?utm_hp_ref=media

[geek tragedy]

87. I'm having trouble finding a copy of the bill as it passed the committee. Do you have a link? nt

[geek tragedy]

99. Actually, found it:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/mediashield/S987AsReported091313ALB13770.pdf

[WillyT]

107. If I'm Reading This Right... DiFi Introduced An Amendment To Schumer's Bill...

"We're closer than we've ever been before to passing a strong and tough media shield bill," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "Thanks to important bipartisan compromises, we've put together a strong bill that balances the need for national security with that of a free press."

The final hurdle for the Judiciary Committee was defining who is a journalist in the digital era.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to "real reporters" and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.

"I can't support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I'm not going to go there," she said.

Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a "covered journalist" as someone who gathers and reports news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and information." The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any "legitimate news-gathering activities."

But the bill also makes it clear that the legal protection is not absolute. Federal officials still may "compel disclosure" from a journalist who has information that could stop or prevent crimes such as murder, kidnapping or child abduction or prevent "acts of terrorism" or significant harm to national security.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a 13-5 vote and sent it to the Senate floor. Its sponsors are optimistic it will win passage there, but its fate remains in doubt in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-shield-law-20130913,0,4553946.story

[geek tragedy]

109. They compromised--they didn't accept DiFi's amendment completely.

Note that it allows a judge to grant an exemption whenever they feel it would help newsgathering, as well as an automatic protection for anyone who generated journalistic work product.

Seems decent enough in the end, despite DiFi's efforts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

146. "While many Mainstream Media outlets support the law"

I'll bet they do support a government enforced monopoly on their industry.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

191. The point of the thread is GOVERNMENT certification of journalism, not need/not-need of shield. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

190. Wrong. A person becomes a journalist when they report, not when the GOVERNMENT accepts them. nt

[randome]

15. So anyone who basically paints a 'J' on his or her head is a journalist.

Anyone who says 'My religion demands that I treat you like dirt.' is okay, too.

We have always had limits on journalism and religion. We always will.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

23. Well... The Crown In England Certainly Didn't Consider Paine A Journalist, They Considered Him...

A Traitor

A lot of that goin around these days. too.

[randome]

25. Point. But that's what courts are for -to 'help' us make the determination.

And things have changed a lot since Paine's time. These days, you get called a traitor if, you know, release classified information to other countries and stuff.

And you don't get called it by the government. You get called 'traitor' by pontificating politicians who should know better than to shoot off their mouths.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[merrily]

46. Funny. He got fired from his U.S. government job for revealing secrets.

Fired, mind you. Not stripped of citizenship or jailed.

[merrily]

37. Reductio ad absurdum.

[Eleanors38]

215. Nowadays folks like to play at edginess, rebelliousness, and being out front. Paine lived it.

[merrily]

95. Actually, Enthusiast did articulate an intelligent argument against what you just posted.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

189. There's the crux: "not only people the GOVERNMENT considers journalists".

I don't know why you are so eager to have the government license journalists or lay down regulations about who can be considered a journalist or not. It is nonsensical.

[Stuckinthebush]

210. Cut that crap out

DU has a number of Democrats who have differing views. That's a good thing.

Please don't shame people for their views - engage them in discussion.

[Fuddnik]

20. You have the right to remain silent.

Use it, because you're incriminating yourself.

[merrily]

34. What are you talking about? Media shield laws keep journalist out of jail.

[geek tragedy]

36. Those are protections created by the government, not granted

by the constitution.

[merrily]

41. Again, freedom of the press is in the Constitution.

The Government has no more right to decide who is entitled to be a "real" journalist and who isn't than it has to decide which is a "real" religion and which isn't.

Again, you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

[geek tragedy]

44. Which do you favor?

Allowing everyone to refuse to testify against other people in criminal investigations, or allowing no one to refuse?

[merrily]

49. I favor the rule of law, which means abiding by the Constitution.

[geek tragedy]

51. The constitution doesn'texempt journalists from cooperating with

criminal investigations.

[merrily]

59. The Constitution doesn't permit government to pick and choose among journalists, either.

Seriously, dude, you don't get how incredibly dangerous that is?

Aside from violating the Constitution?

[geek tragedy]

62. No, it doesn't allow them to pick and choose among journalists.

It does allow the government to treat journalists different than it treats non-journalists.

But, in order to do that . . .

[merrily]

72. No it doesn't allow government to treat journalists differently from non journalists.

Where in hell did you get that notion?

Please stop making up stuff in your continuing effort to defend the indefensible.

Prior to and during the revolution, anyone who could hammer a piece of paper to a tree was a journalist. That is what the people of the US very much had in mind when they insisted that their new plutocratic government include the First Amendment and the other nine amendments into the Constitution.

Guess why the plutocrats were so compliant.

[geek tragedy]

77. So, again, I ask you:

Which do you prefer:

1) No one is required to testify against anyone else in criminal proceedings; or

2) Everyone is required to testify against others, including reporters being required to testify against sources?

[merrily]

84. I answered that already. Besides, it is not a matter of what I prefer. Its the CONSTITUTION.

And as long as we are repeating questions:

Again I ask you, do you not see how potentially dangerous it would be if government had the power to decide who is a real journalist and who is not?

We've survived this far without a federal shield law. The proposed bill is far more dangerous to those who seek to disseminate information than no shield law at all.

(And I am not even making a slippery slope argument yet. Just as it is, it is a heinous bill.)

(Edit for punctuation.

[sabrina 1]

177. That is not a question that is relevant to the issue of freedom of the press.

Journalists SHOULD be protected from having to reveal their sources and/or testify against them.

But since you changed the scope of the argument, let me ask you this. Should elected officials be protected from law suits against them for war crimes eg. treated differently than the rest of us, or should they be subject to the same laws as everyone else?

[whopis01]

227. What do those choices have to do with who and who is not a journalist?

You seem to be implying by (1) that if anyone can be considered a journalist then they can avoid testifying in criminal proceedings.

That is simply ridiculous.

Journalist are not, not ever have been, exempt from testifying in criminal proceedings.

[nvme]

207. Who should determine who are

Enemy combatants and who is a journalist?

[2banon]

123. Yeah, I support allowing everyone to refuse to testify against other people.

If an individual does not want to testify against another individual in a criminal investigation.. it ought to be that persons right. that's what I favor.

[leveymg]

38. Decisions on 1st Amend. privilege are accorded deference by the courts, as would an enumerated

right. Same principle applies to reproductive rights and other modern penumbra.

By the same token, no rights are absolute, particularly as they run up against compelling governmental interests.

[merrily]

42. What compelling interest does government have in deciding who is a "real" journalist"?

[leveymg]

48. That question would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Congress shouldn't legislate

in that are. This is a very bad bill as currently crafted.

[merrily]

50. Exactly. Congress should not decide who is a real journalist and who isn't.

[merrily]

88. I'd like to amend my original response: None of the three branches of government should be

deciding who is and who is not a "real" journalist.

[geek tragedy]

45. Courts have refused to create such protections.

They've punted to the legislature.

[leveymg]

56. There have been many federal cases on this issue. There is 1st Amend case law.

Congress has no business legislating the definition of journalist - it's a direct assault on the 1st Amendment.

[geek tragedy]

65. So, then a federal journalist shield law would be unconstitutional and an assault

on the 1st Amendment?

[leveymg]

67. No, just an overly-restrictive one, like DiFi and Durbin's

[geek tragedy]

68. How can you have a journalist shield law without bothering

to say who is and who isn't a journalist?

[leveymg]

73. Same reason you have Freedom of the Press without defining the Press. When you start

defining specific characteristics or exceptions to the term you automatically impose restrictions. That's what's going on with this f-cked up Bill.

[geek tragedy]

75. So, so long as the definition isn't overly exclusive, the government CAN define

who is and who isn't a journalist?

The problem isn't government defining it, but government defining it in a manner that stifles free speech?

is that what you're saying?

To put it another way, what do you think of Schumer's bill?

[leveymg]

86. No. If the gov't wants to provide explicit exemptions to other laws, it may do so as long as

it doesn't interfere with other rights or privileges. The First Amendment is pretty clear about passing no law infringing freedoms of the press, etc. This Bill does that and is unconstitutional on its face. Simply put, you can't define a journalist by how much she gets paid or by the size of the media company she is associated with, as does this one.

[geek tragedy]

89. This law doesn't restrict anyone's freedom. It expands the rights for some, leaves

others the same as they were before.

[leveymg]

98. You'll need to demonstrate that by excerpting present law and demonstrating who's rights

and privileges stay the same and whose get expanded, before anyone will agree with you that nobody's potentially are reduced.

[geek tragedy]

103. Here's the statute:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/mediashield/S987AsReported091313ALB13770.pdf

It expands privileges for "covered journalists" while saying nothing about anyone else.

Nonsensical to suggest that reduces the rights of others.

[leveymg]

114. Do a line by line of Sec. 11 Definitions.

Explain to us how that keeps the same or expands the exemption for "Covered Journalists" Go ahead.

[geek tragedy]

118. No one is currently afforded the protections of this bill.

So, in whatever form it passes, it will be an expansion of rights for some, and a derogation of rights for no one.

[merrily]

119. Nonsensical to suggest that government should decide who is a real journalist.

[geek tragedy]

120. Yes, you've gone on the record stating that reporters shouldn't be exempted

from testifying against their sources.

I disagree.

[merrily]

125. I didn't, but you've gone on record stating that the Constitution should be ignored. I disagree.

You did not seem troubled by violation of the rule of law by government on the thread about the FDA ruling either.

So, at least you are consistent.,

[geek tragedy]

127. last word is yours, this is tedious nt

[merrily]

134. You find my responding to you in the same way that you posted to me tedious?

I don't blame you in the least.

[merrily]

105. Yes, just like laws discriminating on the basis of race left the rights of whites as they were befor

This is not the driving is a privilege argument. Freedom of the press is in the Constitution.

When Constitutional rights are involved, especially the First Amendment, specious and game-playing arguments fail, no matter how many times you are prepared to post them.

[HangOnKids]

83. I applaud your effort

You might want to discuss this with a different poster!

[NealK]

196. +1 n/t

[Eleanors38]

218. Ironic. Many have no problem defining "arms" in the 2nd. But go ape over defining "press"...

which is a far more specific piece of technology. But the founders were not into sucker plays. Congress shall make no laws -- including definitions of "press." It's more than wordplay and specious argument, they didn't empower Congress even to buy a ticket for this show.

[merrily]

79. Many states have them.

How do you protect journalists from libel suits by politicians without deciding who is a "real" journalist and who is not?

Yet, courts have done that.

[sabrina 1]

198. And you just presented the problem with 'shied laws'. Congress should NOT

be defining who is and who is not a journalist. The 1st Amendment doesn't do so and courts have consistently deferred to the 1st Amendment even when cases presented to them have been controversial.

Iow, right now, it is very difficult to violate the 1st Amendment's protections of Freedom of Speech even when what is being challenged is 'questionable speech'. So there is no need for any 'shield law' which as you, perhaps unwittingly, pointed out, makes it possible for Congress to do what they should never do, define who is and who is not a journalist.

[leveymg]

222. Wasn't unwitting, at all. Congress made the same mistake w/FISA when they limited Title III warrant

Last edited Sat Sep 21, 2013, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

requirements by tacking FISA onto Title III, limiting the scope and protection from government warrantless wiretaps.

The 1976 FISA Act, which most people think of as outlawing domestic wiretapping, actually allows exceptions for the gov't to do domestic wiretaps without a warrant, as was previously outlawed in all cases under the Title III federal wiretapping law of the 1968 Federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.

FISA was actually a step backwards from full constitutional protections -- each subsequent FISA amendment has simply opened up further exceptions to 4th Amendment protections from warrantless wiretaps -- that have been there all along.

[sabrina 1]

224. FISA is not part of the Constitution. It was another pretext to be doing what was already

dealt with in the Constitution. It violates the 4th Amendment to the Constitution especially the last revision of it.

Anyone who believes their rights were violated under the 4th Amendment only had to use that amendment to get justice.

And that is what I mean by these 'fixes' which then get used to overcome the Constitution. As someone once said, they are 'an end run around the Constitution' and that is the intention with this latest proposed legislation.

[leveymg]

226. The current Bill is very much another intended end-run around the First Amendment

When you look at the way the courts interpret legislative intent, it is obvious that DiFi, as Chair, intends this to limit the scope of Privilege for reporters. Any ambiguity -- and there is a great swaths of it -- will be interpreted against journalists (except those "recognized journalists" working for established news organizations,as defined).

Might as well call this the Anti-whistleblower and First Amendment Revocation Act for not The New York Times of 2013, because that's what it is.

[sabrina 1]

230. Thank you. I completely agree and am glad that people are not fooled by the pretext

I just hope that there is a huge backlash to this, but I'm not hopeful.

[JDPriestly]

129. The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from passing any law that limits freedom of the press.

According certain PRIVILEGES to certain individuals who write or publish that are not accorded to all individuals who write or publish is limiting the freedom of the press. You cannot define the press. Because as soon as you define it, you limit it. And the Constitution prohibits that.

This is censorship, pure and simple.

I can't believe the extent to which our governments move toward fascism. 9/11 was just another excuse for it.

And with Dianne Feinstein, her husband and the sale of post offices, it is a terrible thing when a politician is profiting from privatization and is cannibalizing the very government that she is supposed to work to protect.

[geek tragedy]

141. So, in your view the 49 state journalist shield laws that have passed

are exercises are:

1) unconstitutional;
2) censorship;
3) fascist.

Brilliant.

[JDPriestly]

174. Those parts that would limit in any way the freedom of the press are unconstitutional

Abridge means limit among other things.

So if the shield laws protect the freedom of the press, they are constitutional. If not, they are not. It's quite simple really.

If my 10-year-old wants to get her friends together in the summer and create a neighborhood newspaper in which they write the truth about what is going on, they enjoy freedom of the press.

If I write on the internet about some scandal in town that I know about, I am exercising free speech and freedom of the press. We should all be free to obtain information about almost anything. And the almost should be narrowly defined so as to promote freedom, not censorship.

In the days of Wilhelm Reich (at worst, kind of a crazy guy -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich), back in the days when Lady Chatterley's lover could not be published because it was considered to be pornography (under Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley%27s_Lover), the freedom of speech was narrowly defined. We grew up in this country. We realized that we could not censor speech in that way.

At this time, the Congress and the executive and national security parts of our government want to use the secrecy laws to silence criticism of our government and its overbearing policies around the world. We are not allowed to know about the NSA surveillance and collection of our metadata because it is reminiscent if not the expression of a police state, far worse than even the police states of Stalin or of East Germany. Far more intrusive, far more inclusive of information about so many Americans.

The First Amendment in its many protections was written and adopted precisely in order to prevent a US government from censoring us and attempting to control us politically in the very ways that our government now is doing it.

The interpretation of the First Amendment depends of course on the Supreme Court doing the interpreting. I do not expect much of our current bunch on that Court, but I hope that in the future we will get some less rigid ideologues who will be able to see what is going on, how we are facing a power grab more aggressive than any we have yet seen in the US.

I think that the internet will be instrumental in awakening Americans to the loss of their political liberty. And of course, that is why the NSA has the internet under surveillance.

My political views are not all that radical, but I do understand the risks to the First Amendment because of my life experiences and my academic work. It is the bulwark of our personal freedom. We cannot allow it to be narrowed to meaningless.

[Progressive dog]

194. If you cannot define the press than the 1st amendment

"freedom of the press" is meaningless.

[JDPriestly]

199. If the Founding Fathers had wanted to define the press, they would have done so.

The fact is that the press encompassed all kinds of things then, all kinds of undesirable gossip and even secrets. John Adams tried to control the press with the Alien and Sedition Act. It was specifically aimed at francophiles like Jefferson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_and_Kentucky_Resolutions

It's do as I say, not as I do in the US with regard to freedom of the press as the excessive classification of matters of general interest and public policy that are appropriate for public discussion and coverage are labeled top secret by our government. This is especially true of those nasty little embarrassing facts that show a government agency to be corrupt or not acting as it should -- as in the shooting of the reporter in Iraq that was exposed by Corporal Manning and the other atrocities and killings of civilians by drones.

Nevertheless, our government claims to strongly support freedom of the press.

In May 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama signed legislation intended to promote a free press around the world, a bipartisan measure inspired by the murder in Pakistan of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The legislation, called the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, requires the United States Department of State to expand its scrutiny of news media restrictions and intimidation as part of its annual review of human rights in each country.[22] In 2012 the Obama Administration collected communication records from 20 separate home and office lines for Associated Press reporters over a two-month period, possibly in an effort to curtail government leaks to the press. The surveillance caused widespread condemnation by First Amendment experts and free press advocates, and led 50 major media organizations to sign and send a letter of protest to American attorney general Eric Holder.[23][24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press

Apparently the new system allows the president to define what is news and what is not and then lets Congress decide who gets to publish the news and who doesn't.

It is kind of a circuitous route to absolute censorship.

I have told the story on DU before that many years ago, I knew a man from and Eastern European country who was hired by his then Communist government to censor the foreign news media. He was among the first to leave his native land.

We are not allowed to know this and that, things that are probably very important for our lives, because if we knew them, we would know that our government is made of human beings not gods and that we can never be as safe as we would like to be and what is more that America is not perfect. It would be terrible if we found out about the crimes committed in the name of the USA, wouldn't it? We might really demand change. And there are certain individuals and cliques in our government and corporations that would not be employed were that change to occur.

[Progressive dog]

247. So the first amendment "freedom of the press" must be meaningless.

Freedom of the press does not include the right to protect criminals, it is not a get out of jail card, bestowed by "journalists" in return for information.

[JDPriestly]

249. Actually, part of the problem is that our censorship laws, which the government calls

by other names like national security and Secrets Acts and the like, and the NSA spying program already violate the First Amendment in my opinion. There is no need to call journalists criminals or investigate them as criminals. In fact, I think it is a violation of the First Amendment to investigate the news media or information providers as criminals. Under the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and press, the government cannot criminalize the reporting of news. And censoring the news by stamping certain information as secret does not make it something other than news.

I think that when the government calls anyone reporting news a "criminal," the government is violating the First Amendment.

The whole point of the First Amendment was and is that people are supposed to be able to say, report and theorize freely without being concerned about whether the government approves of what they say.

If a government employee gives confidential or classified information to a third party, that is where the crime occurs. The person who reports the information is not committing the crime.

[Progressive dog]

255. Governments have always had secrets and

not one of them has ever allowed those secrets to be "leaked" with impunity. That includes our government.

[Eleanors38]

219. That's the problem. Congress shall make no law. That includes "definitions."

Those bastuds was crafty. Now, let's re-visit the hoopla as to what constitutes "arms" (a much broader notion that the technologically specific "press&quot in the Second!

[Progressive dog]

248. So don't let Congress make new laws, just continue

to hold "the press" in contempt of court when they refuse to disclose their sources in court. Since words have no meanings, we should give up this writing and speaking stuff anyway.

[Eleanors38]

251. Nope. Congress makes no laws abridging freedom of press.

[Progressive dog]

254. Even though press has no deined meaning?

That's pretty strange, no law can abridge freedom of the press if we can't define press. That would almost be funny if it weren't so sad.

[sabrina 1]

175. Wow!

What are you supporting here? It isn't clear. Difi wants the government to determine who is and who is not a 'journalist'. Are you supporting this outrageous proposal, or are you talking about something else?

Oh and btw, Karl Rove doesn't have to comply with subpoenas. Any reason why a journalist should have to comply with something Karl Rove does not?

[geek tragedy]

176. I'm talking about extending legal privileges to journalists so that they

don't have to testify against sources.

A lot of idiots here at DU think that journalist shield laws are unconstiutional.

Seriously.

[NealK]

197. "What are you supporting here?"

Muzzling of the press.

[Skip Intro]

201. That lockstep mentality don't fly here like it used to, does it?

Good for DU!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliffe

[Enthusiast]

9. Have they completely lost their fucking minds?

WTF is right.

[GETPLANING]

13. Establishment Democrats

are almost as bad as Establishment Republicans. Either way, only Establishment Approved reporting will be sanctioned from this point on.

[Ed Suspicious]

19. Why is it the name of the act always seems to imply the opposite of what the

act seeks to accomplish?

I dub this post the "Happy with DiFi act of 2013."

[Glassunion]

22. Because the "Taking a Giant Shit on the 1st Amendment Bill" did not sound as snappy.

[Aerows]

30. Apparently. n/t

[woo me with science]

64. +1

[PowerToThePeople]

112. I think that is a great title.

Hopefully MSM picks up on it. Yea, right.....

[Glassunion]

21. What we should do is require journalists to get a journalist license and have to

register each year with the government.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. DU is at risk. Licensing Journalists is Very Bad. This law is unconstitutional. nt

[geek tragedy]

28. So you think the law should be defeated, and the current system kept as is? nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. If those are the only two alternatives, then absolutely defeat the (proposed) law. But it's not. nt

[merrily]

144. False dichotomy.

[Marr]

31. So if you aren't approved by Corporate America, you're not a journalist.

And Corporate America is joined to the government.

How could anyone to the left of Mussolini think this is a good idea?

[dead_head]

39. A drawing I made about this issue

Here's an illustration I made regarding this issue.
It's inspired by Chris Hedges.

http://www.deadheadcomicks.com/supermanandjournalism.tif

[JoeyT]

47. A press that has to answer to the government when it prints something the government doesn't like

isn't a free press. It's a stenography brigade.

They can silence salaried "journalists" easily by buying whatever station or paper they're attached to. Time to fix the loophole that prevents them from silencing the rest.

[polichick]

52. So, only the BOUGHT CORPORATE "journalists" can have info...

Time for Feinstein and Durbin to go - and replaced with democratic Democrats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. I have said it many a times

Reporters are enemies of the state

[Vashta Nerada]

57. Why do people keep voting for DiFi?

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3702597

Last election I voted for her challenger in the primary.

[Vashta Nerada]

63. Thanks.

I'm glad you voted for her challenger. I want to see her gone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. She runs again, I ain't holding my nose in the general

And people here will scream.

[frylock]

124. i DIDN'T vote for her this time around..

best non-vote of my life.

[Vashta Nerada]

137. I'll support your decision.

[2banon]

151. yep..

I'm with you on that.. In fact I didn't vote for her the last time either. unfortunately the party machine has her firmly entrenched. no challenger of any party will be allowed to defeat her. she doesn't even have to campaign or debate. that's how corrupt the system is.

[merrily]

135. As opposed to voting for a Republican? LOTE.

[Vashta Nerada]

138. So what's the difference between her and a Republican?

[merrily]

154. How should I know? I didn't say there was a difference, did I?

I am not in California. I am also not a proponent of LOTE voting. I have voted stupidly sometimes, but not on purpose!

[bullwinkle428]

66. Charlie Pierce tears DiFi a new one in a way in which I could only dream!

"Hey, Dianne, here's the thing on that First Amendment business. I get to define what you do for a living. And if I decide to define what you do for a living is to be a mewling apologist for the national-security community and a lapdog for the surveillance state, I get to do that, and I get to do it in a newspaper, or video, or on-line, or on a pamphlet stapled to a telephone pole outside your door, if I so choose. You get to sit there, collect your government salary, raise money from plutocrats, and shut...the...hell...up.

I understand that we are going through an accelerated redefinition of what journalism is, and that technology has made the old definition of a journalist obsolete. But there is nothing about the technology -- or about the effects that technology has had on the profession -- that requires us to abandon the fundamental requirement that journalism always -- and let us speak slowly, lest the gobshites misundertand us, a-l-w-a-y-s, is a profession outside of, and adversarial to, government, politics, and, yes, indeed, even the doings of the all-to-human, error-prone heroes of our intelligence apparatus. Nothing about the internet changes that.

There are far too many people right now in Washington who are far too comfortable in being a de facto part of the country's power structure. Their profession is not mine. Let me be quite clear. If you accept the Congress's right to define what a journalist is, you are a miserable traitor to the profession you presume to practice. You have, quite simply, become something less worthy than an informer, something lower than a jailhouse snitch."

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/dianne-feinstein-sheild-laws-091913

[WillyT]

96. WOW !!! - Thank You For That !!! -MUST READ !!!

[WillyT]

117. Do You Want To OP This, Or Should I ???

:hi

[bullwinkle428]

165. Go for it, Willy! I'm just glad to have stumbled across it,

after reading this particular OP on the subject.

[2banon]

157. outstanding.

she gives a shit less about Charles Pierce (or anyone else) and does not have to care unfortunately. But just the same, this piece needs to get widely noticed (to the 99%)...

[GeorgeGist]

179. Will her husband get the Certification right$?

[bread_and_roses]

209. oh AMEN to that! (n/t)

[HooptieWagon]

70. So only Corporate Media hacks can report on Corporate Government.

Are we at Fascism yet?

[JDPriestly]

78. We will have to form news cooperatives.

And what happens to independent neighborhood investigators? Like moms who discover a police officer who is abusing people, find out secret information from the employment files of the officer, information that is protected by law and publish it in their own news on the internet?

Or anyone else who finds out government secrets and provides the information through a neighborhood newsletter that is not a business and does not pay reporters. Like some of the on-line newspapers in certain communities?

[Oilwellian]

192. On the other side of the spectrum...

There are freelance journalists such as Greg Palast who would be up the creek if Durbin and DiFi's ultimate fascist fantasy comes true. They've become quite brazen with those clamps.

[Maedhros]

81. Obama should veto this piece of crap - but will he? [n/t]

[merrily]

91. Veto it? Who do you think DiFi has been pushing it for?

[Maedhros]

160. A veto/signing of this bill would serve as a good litmus test

for the President's commitment to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

What's more important: the public's right to know what the Government is doing in our name, or the Government's ability to spin abuse and wrongdoing into "nothing to see here, move along."

[merrily]

167. Yes, but I can't see him vetoing, unless the bill does not contain a national security exception.

Then, I think he will veto, but not out of respect for the Bill of Rights.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/15/obama-schumer-associated-press-shield-law/2161913/

[Oilwellian]

193. He kissed those rights goodbye long ago

The secret kill list is one of many examples.

[ProSense]

90. Co-sponsors

Ayotte, Kelly
Baldwin, Tammy
Baucus, Max
Bennet, Michael
Blumenthal, Richard
Blunt, Roy
Boxer, Barbara
Cantwell, Maria
Coons, Christopher
Gillibrand, Kirsten
Graham, Lindsey
Harkin, Tom
Hirono, Mazie
Isakson, Johnny
Klobuchar, Amy
Leahy, Patrick
McCaskill, Claire
Murray, Patty
Tester, Jon
Udall, Tom

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s987

[merrily]

92. And?

[ProSense]

93. What? n/t

[merrily]

94. I assumed your post had a point. If so, the point is not self evident.

Hence, my question.

But, you knew that, right?

[ProSense]

97. Yes, "the point": co-sponsors.

Is that invisible?

[merrily]

101. Very visible, as are you.

Obviously, you thought the identity of the co-sponsors made some kind of point, that the list was significant in some way.

If you don't want to share what point you thought posting the list was going to make, that's perfectly understandable.

But then, since the point is not self evident, why bother to post the list at all?

[ProSense]

104. You're "visible" also, too.

"Obviously, you thought the identity of the co-sponsors made some kind of point, that the list was significant in some way. "

Yes, it identified the co-sponsors. Astute!

[merrily]

108. I have no problem whatever being as visible and as transparent as you are.

I also have no problem explaining what point my posts are supposed to make.

I simply do not buy that you posted the list simply for the sake of posting it.

[ProSense]

110. Well,

"I simply do not buy that you posted the list simply for the sake of posting it."

...that sounds like your problem, not mine.

[merrily]

113. It's not a problem for me.

[Warren Stupidity]

182. It's like hunting snark.

[westerebus]

200. Duzzy!!!

[2banon]

164. The point PS was trying to make was

to inform us of the list of Traitors who co-sponsored this fascist bill.. Presumably so that we can actively seek to expose them for what they are, and perhaps find challengers in future elections..

Isn't that obvious?

[whatchamacallit]

171. Ha! If only...

+1

[ProSense]

173. "to inform us of the list of Traitors who co-sponsored this fascist bill."

"Presumably so that we can actively seek to expose them for what they are, and perhaps find challengers in future elections."

No, that's your point. Maybe you're afraid of information?

[2banon]

178. "afraid of information" ... huh?

non-sequitur..

[woo me with science]

100. These people are DANGEROUS.

They are not merely stupid.
They are not merely craven.
Thy are not merely greedy.
They are not merely corrupt.

They are building CORPORATE FASCISM.

[geek tragedy]

102. Here's the version the committee passed:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/mediashield/S987AsReported091313ALB13770.pdf

Note:

1) in addition to DiFi's obnoxious employer-based definition, they also included people (a) who have generated journalistic work product; or (b) anyone else the judge thinks should qualify in order to protect newsgathering.

[JoePhilly]

116. I wonder if posting on DU makes me a journalist?

[merrily]

139. Should it matter?

It's not so much DU posts that trouble me as blogging journalists.

Although both are a mixed bag in terms of honest news value, as is the stuff we read in the NYT.

[JoePhilly]

153. I just want to determine if I can use these legal protections.

You never know ... might come in handy some day.

Good to know your options.

[merrily]

155. If you are asking if you would be protected under the draft federal shield bill,

just because you post at DU, I don't think you would be.

[questionseverything]

121. so the bill takes us from

the constitutional protections EVERY citizen is guaranteed and limits it to :

1) in addition to DiFi's obnoxious employer-based definition, they also included people (a) who have generated journalistic work product; or (b) anyone else the judge thinks should qualify in order to protect newsgathering.

like some political hack judge is supposed to make us feel better?

[geek tragedy]

122. Incorrect. Right now NO ONE has those protections.

Ask James Risen.

[questionseverything]

131. so you think we NEED

a democratic bill to stop a democratic admin from prosecuting reporters?

why doesnt current admin just stop persecuting reporters?

they could start with barrett brown

or snowden/greenwald

[geek tragedy]

136. and next time there's a Republican? nt

[questionseverything]

147. how will we know the difference?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023696942

delay goes free,never serves a day in jail but seigleman rots away

700,000 prosecuted this year for possession but summers walks free

[geek tragedy]

148. Tom DeLay's conviction/prosecution has absolutely nothing to do with the President.

Also, Summers is a failure-prone sexist gasbag, but that's not a crime.

[questionseverything]

159. geek said

Tom DeLay's conviction/prosecution has absolutely nothing to do with the President.,,,maybe not but current admin does have a hand in keeping seigleman,who got not a nickle,locked up

and


Also, Summers is a failure-prone sexist gasbag, but that's not a crime. ///////////////////////////////

maybe not, but conspiring with the 5 biggest banks in the world to bring worthless deviates to market so he could steal millions is

and while i am at it...wtf is gov ultra sound still walking free? there is more than enough in the public record to put him in prison but the current admin does not seem interested in prosecuting repubs

[merrily]

163. You appear to have missed the point of Questions Everything's post.

BTW, when did a Republican AG monitor all communications with an AP reporter in an attempt to identify his source?

[merrily]

143. Not so. A number of states have shield laws.

Mind you, we've been living since 1776 without federal shield law, other than the First Amendment.

We have never lived with the U.S. government deciding which journalists deserve First Amendment protection and which do not.

[merrily]

149. Every state besides Wyoming has some shield protections, judicial and/or legislative.

[geek tragedy]

150. This is about protections from FEDERAL investigations.

Right now, NO ONE has protections from FEDERAL investigations.

[merrily]

152. There is some SCOTUS precedent on point.

It is not the clearest, though.

However, the feds are perfectly able to grant protection without violating the Constitution.

(and we have not even gotten to the national security exception yet. I wonder how Glen Greenwald, who is a real journalist by any rational definition, feels about that one?)

[questionseverything]

169. national security exception

this will be the wild card that allows executive branch to do whatever it wishes

[merrily]

170. Sure. Leakers are usually perceived by government to be a threat to national security.

[merrily]

158. Not exactly. This would, however, give government the power to decide who is

a journalist and who is not. That is a very dangerous power for government to have.

As it is, journalists are already too corporate and too pro-establishment.

[PowerToThePeople]

106. DiFi is a DiNO.

This bill needs to get flushed.

[frylock]

126. fuck feinstein

fuck. her.

[TheKentuckian]

128. Another day, another travesty.

[Roland99]

140. How many reporters back in the late 1700s earned a salary commensurate w/the NYTimes or WaPo?

[merrily]

145. Anyone who could hammer a piece of paper to a tree got First Amendment protection.

The potential danger of this bill to democracy (and the 99%) cannot be overstated.

Then again, they say the TPP will end democracy, so maybe it doesn't matter.

[Roland99]

161. Exactly!

TPP is NAFTA's ugly bastard stepbrother.

[rhett o rick]

142. Wait just a minute. First of all it's a low blow to immediately use the "unConstitutional" card.

The Congress swears to uphold the Constitution. The Congress never (patriot act) ever passes laws contrary (FISA)... to the so-called Constitution .... well some times (indefinite detention) ... Will you believe almost never (DOMA)? Sorry I am hearing voices (War Powers Act) I think are coming from my microwave.

Well at least we have a liberal President (penny pritzker) to veto this law...(gen Clapper) ... please make the voices stop. It's the toaster, that's the ticket, it's the toaster.

[jsr]

156. Feinstein is proof of the new Orwellian theorem:

Democrat = Republican.

[WillyT]

185. Fits Nicely With The Rest...

[davidn3600]

168. Yet everyone laughs at Assange when he says America has a war on journalism and whistleblowers

We've got a government that despises anyone who tells the truth. We've got a government that considers everyone a potential terrorist until proven otherwise.

[whatchamacallit]

172. I sense synergy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3700398

America is eating itself alive.

[mick063]

184. Bottom line is

She has a (D) by her name.


Swear fealty now.


Team sport rules. Forget the issues. I love the color of our uniforms.

[RC]

212. That (D) does not mean much anymore

Between the DLC, DINO's, converted Republicans because the Democrat Party has moved so far to the Right, There are few left in any of the three branches of government, that have not been bought off.

Unless we start building guillotines and take to the streets soon, we are pretty well done for.

[raouldukelives]

186. K&R and WTF

Every day it seems like more and more pieces are falling into place. All thanks to the best efforts of Wall St and its minions turning our open democracy into a global corporate utopia.
I hope people start taking this stuff seriously soon.

[blkmusclmachine]

188. It's too late.

[blkmusclmachine]

187. Welcome to the POLICE STATE. And Obama's 30,000 Drones are coming, too.

[Faryn Balyncd]

202. Feinstein and Durbin are TRAITORS.

[woo me with science]

203. They cannot get away with this.

[AzDar]

204. Truly...

[myrna minx]

205. It's exhausting to have to fight against your own party so much of the time. K&R. *sigh*

[Scuba]

208. Journalism is ....

[Eleanors38]

220. Perfect. Check #216 below.

[adavid]

211. If this "law" is passed...

I can see Fox news say "we cant/you cant use that as a source, because they are not on the government approved media list".

[Eleanors38]

214. "Right of the people" shall not be "abridged" or "infringed." Funny how that works in the BOR. nt

[Eleanors38]

216. And Orwell would have a thing to say to DiFi about gun control:

"That rifle hanging on the wall
of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage
is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there."

http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerorwellgunseurope.shtml
________________

Ms. Revolver-in-her-purse Feinstein doesn't get the irony of Orwell.

[Scuba]

229. That becomes hilarious when one considers the weapons the government / MIC control today.

[Eleanors38]

246. Explains why imperial/superpowers never lose against guerilla & insurrection forces.

[Sanddog42]

217. Maybe I'm missing something.

It seems to me that this law just adds an extra layer of protections for journalists.
I don't see where it abridges anyone's freedom of speech or press.
Can anyone help me understand how this is a bad thing?

[Enrique]

221. it is that the government defines who is a journalist

independent journalists would not get the protections.

[Sanddog42]

225. But independent journalists don't have those protections now.

So they're not losing anything. Their rights haven't been abridged or limited in any way.

Besides, I don't see in the law where it defines who a journalist is at all.

It defines "covered persons," meaning persons covered by this law, and the definition as it is written would cover independent journalists.

http://www.spj.org/pdf/s-987-ffia-schumer-graham.pdf

[woo me with science]

232. No, it does exactly the opposite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705470

[Sanddog42]

234. So you think the shield law is unnecessary

and in fact counter-productive because the Risen case turned out so well?

[woo me with science]

235. Risen should never have been hauled into court,

and he would NOT have been hauled into court under previous administrations and the previous normal handling of our justice system. This administration's war on whistleblowing and journalists is unprecedented, as the numbers clearly show.

It takes a heaping of gall for corporate Democrats to wage a war on journalists and then *use* that targeting to argue that journalists thus need protection.

Particularly when the "protection" they offer is a law that would....surprise....give themselves the power to decree who is and who is not a journalist.

The dishonest corporate tactic of passing "protections" to dismantle the Constitution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705470

[Sanddog42]

236. But he WAS hauled into court and the court sided with the feds.

So what's the solution?

[woo me with science]

237. The solution is to get rid of the corporate authoritarians now corrupting our government

and insist on the restoration of our Constitution.

The solution is NOT to accept or even dignify with any sort of passing consideration their blatantly manipulative and unconstitutional grab for power.

[Sanddog42]

239. Agreed, but how?

All we've got is this crappy check-and-balance system where the courts make rulings that weaken the Constitution and then Congress makes a law to try to counteract that ruling. (Or vice versa, as sometimes happens.)

[woo me with science]

241. No, you don't agree.

You are playing games here, obviously, trying to justify a brazen assault on the Constitution.

Goodbye.

So now we're expected to have serious "debates" about whether journalists need to be approved
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023702583

[Sanddog42]

242. I agree that we need to get rid of corporate authoritarians corrupting our government.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I'm not yet convinced that this shield law is an attack on the Constitution.
It still appears to me to be an attempt to correct the precedent set by a bad court ruling.

[Sanddog42]

238. btw, I still haven't been able to find where this law defines who is and is not a journalist

Maybe I'm only finding outdated versions.
Do you have link, or a citation?

[Enrique]

250. here

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/09/15/strike-person-and-insert-journalist/

The Senate Judiciary Committee has reported out a bill to create a national shield law, but struggled with who would be entitled to invoke the shield. A compromise was reached, requiring an amendment to the bill. The amendment struck “person” throughout the bill and replaced it with “journalist.” They then defined journalist.

(1) COVERED JOURNALIST.—

(A) DEFINITION.—The term ‘‘covered journalist’’—

(i)(I) means a person who

(aa) is, or on the relevant date, was, an employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program; magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic, or other format; or through television or radio broadcast, multichannel video programming distributor (as such term is defined in section 602(13) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(13)), or motion picture for public showing;

(bb) with the primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information concerning local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest, engages, or as of the relevant date engaged, in the regular gathering, preparation, collection, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing on such matters by—

(AA) conducting interviews;

(BB) making direct observation of events; or

(CC) collecting, reviewing, or analyzing original writings, statements, communications, reports, memoranda, records, transcripts, documents, photographs, recordings, tapes, materials, data, or other information whether in paper, electronic, or other form;

(cc) had such intent at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought; and

(dd) obtained the news or information sought in order to disseminate the news or information to the public; or

(II) means a person who—

(aa) at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information concerning local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest, and regularly conducted interviews, reviewed documents, captured images of events, or directly observed events;

(bb) obtained the news or information sought in order to disseminate it by means of a medium set out in subclause (I)(aa) of this section; and

(cc) either—

(AA) would have been included in the definition in subclause (I)(aa) of this section for any continuous one-year period within the 20 years prior to the relevant date or any continuous three-month period within the years prior to the relevant date;

(BB) had substantially contributed, as an author, editor, photographer, or producer, to a significant number of articles, stories, programs, or publications by a medium set out in subclause (I)(aa) of this section within 5 years prior to the relevant date; or

(CC) was a student participating in a journalistic medium at an institution of higher education (as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)) on the relevant date;

[Sanddog42]

253. thanks

[treestar]

252. What you are missing is that this is the latest outrage.

Risen was an outrage when the case was in the news. Strangely, this bill would have protected Risen. However, it's now the outrage. Forget Risen. The only standard here is that the sky is falling. If we have to move the goalposts to prove the sky is falling, we have to move them. Forget about how it is inconsistent with the outrage a few weeks ago about Risen. We are to be perpetually outraged even if it means being inconsistent.

[gulliver]

223. Wow. Lot's of amazingly bad stuff seems to happen every day.

Horrible Orwellian dystopias loom behind every tree and in every shadow. Things only seem to be getting better and better. I guess that is how we know we must be in grave peril.

[MFrohike]

228. Two things

1. Section (a)(2)(A)(iv) -

(iv) the covered journalist has not es-
12 tablished by clear and convincing evidence
13 that disclosure of the protected information
14 would be contrary to the public interest,
15 taking into account both the public interest
16 in gathering and disseminating the infor-
17 mation or news at issue and maintaining
18 the free flow of information and the public
19 interest in compelling disclosure (including
20 the extent of any harm to national secu-
21 rity)

This is effectively a presumption that the government has a right to the information as opposed to an interest in obtaining it. Clear and convincing is a pretty high burden to meet. I suspect this bit will effectively neuter any journalistic shielding in the criminal context.

2. The definitions are vague and arbitrary. I was bothered because the definition of covered person in section 11 seems to revolve around people who either work in news or for whom blogging/reporting is a significant sideline. Further, there seems to be a requirement that reporting the news must always have been the underlying purpose for the covered person. I have to wonder whether a gossip columnist (or the internet equivalent) would really be covered under this act if it was not their primary occupation. Also, the time requirements for being a "journalist" are arbitrary and really should be judged unconstitutional if this act is passed. I don't see an obvious purpose for them and I didn't see any findings in the act that would support it.

Oh yeah, if Wikileaks starting doing "news" analysis of its documents, it will evade the intent of 11(1)(A)(iii)(I).

[Sanddog42]

233. compelling

"Clear and convincing" isn't that high a bar to meet. It just means that's it's more likely to be true than not.

Besides, that provision only comes into play if (a) a judge determines that the party seeking to compel disclosure has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources of the information, (b) that it's part of a criminal investigation or prosecution, (c) that there is reasonable grounds (based on information from a source other than the journalist) to believe a crime has occurred, and (d) that there is reasonable grounds to believe that the information is essential to the investigation or the prosecution or the defense.

So it isn't really a "presumption" that government has a right to the info. On the contrary, the government has to demonstrate that it has a right to and a need for this information, and that it has to get the info from the covered journalist (because it can't be gotten elsewhere).

[MFrohike]

243. You're wrong

Preponderance is more likely true than not. Clear and convincing is the higher standard. Compelling is the level of interest the government has to show in strict scrutiny cases.

The issue here isn't when it comes into play, which is irrelevant to my comments above, but that when it does, the burden of proof is on the covered person instead of the government, who is actually seeking the information. The standard to reach that point is essentially "reasonable grounds" which might as well be the "government feels like it." Reasonable grounds is analogous to reasonable suspicion, which is about shin-high. So, if the judge takes the government's arguments at face value, the covered person will likely have to meet a burden that isn't far short of a criminal trial. If that's not a presumption, I'd be real curious to hear your definition of one.

[Sanddog42]

244. ah

Thanks for clearing that up.

[99Forever]

231. That's what happens...

... absolute power does indeed, corrupt absolutely.

Can't have the proles getting all uppity and thinking they deserve information not screened by the brilliant fucking "minds" of our oh-so-fucking-productive congresscritters.

[struggle4progress]

240. Your objection is a hallucinatory: the status of federal journalist privilege was "resolved"

by the Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes, saying essentially there is no such thing

The bill in question here does at least provide in many cases that reporters can be compelled to disclose contrary to promised confidentiality only if the authority seeking the warrant has "exhausted all reasonable alternative sources (other than a covered journalist) of the protected information"

For the purposes of interpretation, of course, the bill does define what it means to be a journalist covered by the bill: to read that as "only salaried journalists will be given the .. protections guaranteed .. by the Constitution" is simply bizarre, since as a matter of fact such protections (allegedly "guaranteed .. by the Constitution&quot seem not to have been generally recognized by federal courts

[DirkGently]

245. Yeah. That's bullshit right there.

DiFi lost me some time ago with her authoritarian nonsense.