By Popular DU Request... Charles Pierce On DiFi Defining A Journalist And The Shield Law...

[WillyT]

Dianne Feinstein Defines "Journalist"
By Charles P. Pierce - Esquire
at 9:30am 9/20/13

<snip>

"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.

Which part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand?

I think I mentioned a while back that, while I was in journalism school -- And, yes, I went to J-school. Don't let that get around, OK? -- we were all the time debating the notion of a shield law. It was the late, great George Reedy, without whom I likely would have been the one lawyer who broke the camel's back, who pointed out that, if we accepted a shield law, then we also would have to accept government's right to define who it would be that the shield law covered, which meant we had to accept the government's right essentially to define what a journalist was, and this way, George said, lay madness. He mentioned the Royal licenses against which colonial pamphleteers rebelled. And the Stamp Act. And the use of the post office to restrict the circulation of unpopular ideas, from abolitionist newspapers to the Comstock laws. (George believed that nothing repressive ever really was new.) Since he'd already written a brilliant book that pretty much said that the nature of the modern presidency made something like Watergate completely inevitable -- The Twilight Of The Presidency. Read it, kidz. -- I tended to take George's clairvoyance on such matters quite seriously. And now I have Dianne Feinstein presuming to define what I do for a living. Wherever you are, George, take a bow.

<And...>

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."

<snip>

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

[ProSense]

1. More reaction:

Reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704140

[WillyT]

2. Oh... There Is All Sorts Of Reaction...

[ProSense]

3. I know, I posted the

reaction from a bunch of fools.

[WillyT]

4. Are You Gonna Be OK ???

You seem truly invested in this story.

[ProSense]

6. Are you OK?

You appear to be projecting.

[WillyT]

8. I'm Fine... And Hey, Thanks For Asking !!!

[Junkdrawer]

5. Trojan Horse thing....

Sounds like a plus for journalists, but.....

Trying to codify the distinction between "approved news" (read propaganda) and subversion.

If it passes, expect more legislation to expand the "privileges" and "punishments" for each.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Precisely. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

11. Crafted to survive judical challenges.

Expect the other shoe AFTER it's approved by the courts.

[Uncle Joe]

13. It kind of reminds me of the ACA, it looks good on paper and has some nice features but

in the long run, the greatest beneficiaries will be the for profit "health" insurance corporations, their power and wealth will build to the point were they will be able to undermine or erode the positive aspects of that law through bribery and lobbying.

The corporate media propaganda monopoly owned by just 6 mega-corporations will only gain more power as a result of this.

The American Citizen Journalists (people) will be made to jump through more hoops, ie: going to court just to prove they're a journalist.

[woo me with science]

23. +10000

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[WillyT]

10. Anytime Uncle Joe... Anytime...

Hope everybody is gonna be alright.

[sabrina 1]

12. We don't need their silly pretexts at protecting journalists. We have all the protection needed

contained in the Supreme Law of the Land. There is nothing that needs to be added to that Amendment. Any attempt to 'define' journalism is a threat to the freedom of the press. We have seen how they have gone after news organizations and whistle blowers. No legislation coming from the current government regarding freedom of the press can be trusted considering their reactions to the publication of truth about the way this government has been functioning.

Good article.

[LuvNewcastle]

25. Agreed. We don't want them picking and choosing who gets to be

a journalist. That's one step away from government-approved media.

[leftstreet]

28. +1

[woo me with science]

36. Thank you.

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. 1988 My friend. We let them get the camel's nose under the tent and lost our most

important right. The power of protest was lost a quarter century ago and every piece of shit politician since then has restricted it further.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

52. If I may, can I ask to what you are referring? Thanks. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

54. Al From's reich wing DLC was formed and funded that fateful year. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

15. .

.

[catchnrelease]

16. I love Charlie Pierce

DU and CPP are the first things I check online everyday. He is always right on, imo, and has a razor sharp wit to boot.

[truedelphi]

17. That is one kick ass article.

Well done Charles Pierce.

Well done.

[NealK]

18. K&R n/t

[woo me with science]

19. K&R

[boston bean]

20. Doubling Down Dianne?

So, because of Snowden, we have to further give up more rights?

The world is nuts.

[Enthusiast]

21. Kicked and Recommended.

Thanks, WillyT! Good stuff.

[myrna minx]

22. K&R n/t

[woo me with science]

24. kick

[geek tragedy]

26. So, Pierce and DU support what happened to James Risen.

Who needs to protect sources anyways?

This is a classic example of people embracing a purity rule because it makes them feel morally superior, with the real world consequences less important to pompous chest-beating.

[WillyT]

27. I'm Pretty Sure THIS Was His Point...

I think I mentioned a while back that, while I was in journalism school -- And, yes, I went to J-school. Don't let that get around, OK? -- we were all the time debating the notion of a shield law. It was the late, great George Reedy, without whom I likely would have been the one lawyer who broke the camel's back, who pointed out that, if we accepted a shield law, then we also would have to accept government's right to define who it would be that the shield law covered, which meant we had to accept the government's right essentially to define what a journalist was, and this way, George said, lay madness. He mentioned the Royal licenses against which colonial pamphleteers rebelled. And the Stamp Act. And the use of the post office to restrict the circulation of unpopular ideas, from abolitionist newspapers to the Comstock laws.

From the OP.

[geek tragedy]

30. His point has been disproven by history.

Shield laws have done nothing to undermine journalism,

His complaint is about posturing, not concern for reporters.

[hunter]

38. If they can decide who to shield, they can decide who NOT to shield.

The definition of who is a "journalist" ought to be something for the jury, but we've pretty much lost that one already too where judges can convince the rubes that "The Law is the Law."

I don't respect anyone who doesn't question authority always, I don't respect anyone who doesn't pick fights with authority whenever warranted.

The mindset of authoritarians and the people who follow them eludes me. I don't know why they are like they are. I think you have to beat it into kids and it only "takes" in some of them. Most of us simply try to follow our conscience.

In any case it's ME the reader who gets to decide who I think is a journalist or not, not some authoritarian government credentialing committee or a giant corporation.

[geek tragedy]

39. Juries don't determine evidentiary issues--judges do.

So, someone at some point drawing a government paycheck needs to have a working definition of journalism otherwise there is no protection of journalists.

[hunter]

42. Traditionally, journalists would sit in jail to protect a source...

... until Sixth Amendment issues were raised.

But now that the Sixth Amendment is long dead the fascists are chipping away at the other Constitutional rights.

I wouldn't call anyone in the U.S.A. who wasn't willing to go to jail to protect a source a "journalist" and I wouldn't call any media corporation unwilling to defend their journalists "the Press."

[geek tragedy]

44. So, Judy Miller is a journalist and James Risen isn't. nt

[hunter]

45. Say what? Do you think Risen should get special treatment...

... just because he works for the New York Times?

I DO NOT.

Whatever happens to him, good or bad, happens to all of us, even the journalist-blogger with a few readers.

"Too big to fail" ought not be a standard for banks or journalism.

[geek tragedy]

46. Okay, so then you really can't complain about how the Eric Holder's DOJ threatened

to throw him in jail unless he revealed his source.

[hunter]

47. Someone needs to "press" back. And "complain."

Giving special rights to the big guys gives the the DOJ and other government agencies freer rein to trample the rights of the little guys.

[geek tragedy]

48. So you agree that the law should remain such

that reporters can be thrown in jail for refusing to testify against their confidential sources.

[hunter]

49. If I can be thrown in jail, they can be thrown in jail.

Hell yes. We don't need a fascist government hiding behind so-called "journalists" who have been granted special privileges, do we?

Are you saying you want such a fascist government, that decides what is or is not "journalism," or are you saying we have a fascist government already? Or maybe you are saying something else?

Look, if someone posts some sort of muckraking reporting here on DU, then yes, I'd consider that journalism.

It's Freedom of the Press and in these days anyone can have a press. I could post something important from a public library. "No Gatekeepers" is the way journalism ought to be.

I'm also a believer in government transparency. It would be better to have EVERY Government activity transparent, better than the secrecy we've got now. No "secrets" at all. A lot of evil would shrivel up and die in that kind of light. I'd outlaw military secrets too, except the most basic sort, like where the nuclear weapons were stashed and how they were defended. These days most government secrecy exists only to hide utterly corrupt institutions.

[libdem4life]

29. Think we need to write some rules about political spouses and egregious real estate profits

selling post offices and such. Probably one of those "uppity journalists" mentioned this??

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/blum.asp

[bvar22]

31. Worth Repeating:

[font size=3]"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."[/font]

This extends beyond those who just practice Journalism.
The extends to every member of our Democracy.

DURec!



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[WillyT]

32. Agreed !!!

[rhett o rick]

33. Typical authoritarian responses will indicate that we need our government to tell us

who journalists are, just like we need our government to decide on just how much spying they can do on us. Authoritarians love to have their big daddy government telling them what to do.

They will tell you they hate Republicans but are ok with Clapper, Mueller, Geitner, Comey, Bernanke, Immelt, Cote, Alexander, Gates, McChrystal, Lew, Norton, Brennen, Hegal, Taylor, or other Republicans that Pres Obama appoints.

Thanks for the thread.

[kenny blankenship]

35. I've noticed that they can't wait to start shutting people up, too.

[rhett o rick]

37. They like to use the alert system a lot to try to shut down opposing views. nm

[randome]

34. 'By Popular DU Request'? What does that mean? Anything?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Liberal_Dog]

40. K & R

Thanks for posting this.

[99Forever]

41. Dianne Feinstein needs gone.

Gone from office and gone from any DECENT, HONORABLE, ETHICAL, political party that has We the People's best interests at heart.

What a fucking, worthless SELLOUT she is.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. She's also entrenched.

I thought the old bat (I can say that because I are one) would hang it up in 2012. She's 73 for goddess sake, but nooooo, she had to run for another 6-year term. There's no way anyone can primary her because the CDP would run them out of state on a rail. So, we're stuck with her until 2018. She'll be 79 then and I would think even SHE would figure out that that's too old for another Senate run. The thing is, we've got some incredibly great new blood just standing in the wings waiting to take over.

[Skip Intro]

50. K&R! n/t

[Benton D Struckcheon]

51. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EXACTLY!!!!!

Thank you for posting this.

[DirkGently]

53. That's my take on shield laws as well.

And I also went to "J school."

Anyone can be a journalist. It's not a licensed profession, and it shouldn't be. Extending protections to some in order to deny them to others is a trap.