Senate Panel Approves Measure Defining A Journalist, OKs Media Shield Legislation
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A Senate panel on Thursday approved a measure defining a journalist, which had been an obstacle to broader media shield legislation designed to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal their sources.
The Judiciary Committee's action cleared the way for approval of legislation prompted by the disclosure earlier this year that the Justice Department had secretly subpoenaed almost two months of telephone records for 21 phone lines used by reporters and editors for The Associated Press and secretly used a warrant to obtain some emails of a Fox News journalist. The subpoenas grew out of investigations into leaks of classified information to the news organizations.
--CLIP
The vote was 13-5 for a compromise defining a "covered journalist" as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.
It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist," who would be granted the privileges of the law.
Read more: http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/223472861.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Define ‘Journalism’ not ‘Journalist’ in New Shield Law
SEP 9
Today Calbuzz publishes the first of two pieces from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the most influential Internet civil liberties organization in the world, analyzing pending federal legislation that allegedly would provide new protections for journalists.
The so-called “Free Flow of Information Act” would establish a U.S. shield law, giving reporters the right to refuse to testify about information and sources used in producing stories. While most states, including California, provide such a privilege for reporters, the federal government does not; at a time when the Obama Administration has stepped up harassment of journalists over stories that include leaked information, First Amendment groups and journalists of all stripes have pushed for such legislation.
But as Morgan Weiland of EFF shows, the law proposed by New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer in fact is quite limited in its scope, and heavily favors elite legacy media while ignoring the rights of bloggers and other online journalists.
Tomorrow, we’ll post a second Weiland piece that looks at the retrograde stance taken by Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is seeking to block the interests of online reporters altogether, while giving the government the power to define who is a journalist and who isn’t. (Full disclosure: a high-ranking Calbuzz apparatchik has contributed actual cash money to the legal defense operations of the Electronic Frontier Foundation).
By Morgan Weiland
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lawmakers in Washington are again weighing in on who should and should not qualify as a journalist—and the outcome looks pretty grim for bloggers, freelancers, and other non-salaried journalists.
<>
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)
alp227
(33,271 posts)Whistleblower could remain anonymous, thanks to brave reporters in the media.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)The bill narrows the definition of journalist. So while it sort of "codifies" the case, it is the side effects that are more important to the politicians and more damaging to journalism.
First, the bill would mean that if somebody blogs an anonymous whistleblower, their IP provider could be forced to reveal them and the blogger forced to reveal the whistleblower.
This is because the bill seeks to greatly restrict the definition of journalist to a few approved media outlets.
Yes, journalists would have a codified shield, but there would be a very much reduced number of them shielded.
The bill trades a big broad shield of legal precedent for a small shield of legislation.
Second, by effectively licensing journalists, this restricts media freedoms. It also restricts free speech by stomping all over bloggers and 'citizen journalists'. It means much more pressure on those media outlets to maintain their journalist licensing and therefore toe the government line and not offend bureaucracies. Corporate interests already have advertising and media ownership for pressure.
Remember the old saw? "Freedom of the press is really freedom for those who own the press." This move extends that. Licensing means the government effectively owning the journalists. It would mean a guild where only people with degrees in journalism or broadcasting could report.
It also means that bloggers and citizen journalists can be shut down at any time if they actually commit real journalism that politicians and their corporate backers don't like. Effectively it would mean that unofficial journalists would not own a press anymore.
The politicians want to restrict the media and especially the bloggers in the same way that they strictly control their press conferences and their interviews and their message.
The net result is less honest reporting, less sunlight, and less free speech.
alp227
(33,271 posts)or Boner refuses to put it up for a vote.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"entity that disseminates news or information" and "church" or "religion."
It's a neat way to delete the First Amendment from our Constitution.
If I decide to open a news blog tomorrow, would I be covered?
No.
Let's remember what the First Amendment says:
Amendment I
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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
So what does "abridge" mean (or will they redefine that too?)?
Random House 1991 edition (before the "Reagan revolution" got around to making up its own definitions):
page 5
abridge v.t., abridged abridging. 1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a book. 2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, or extent; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit. 3. to deprive; cut off. (1350-1400; ME . . MF abreg(i)er. . .ML abbreviare. See -- abridgable. . . . .
abridgment or abridgement n. 1. a shortened or condensed form of a book, speech, etc., that still retains the basic contents. 2. the act or process of abridging. 3. the state of being abridged. 4. reduction or curtailment: abridgment of civil rights. (1400-50; late ME . . .MF)
To define the press so narrowly is just a clever way of abridging it. Next thing you know, they will require members of the press to get a license to practice reporting.
This is simply beyond the powers of Congress. To define something is to limit it. That does not comply with the First Amendment in my opinion.
Past Supreme Courts have decided that the government can pass laws limiting the time, place and manner of speech. But they never dreamed that Congress would try to pass a law limiting the freedom of the press by simply defining what press is. I just don't think that Congress has that authority under our Constitution.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Definition of JOURNALIST
1
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
jour·nal·ism
: the activity or job of collecting, writing, and editing news stories for newspapers, magazines, television, or radio
Not one word about getting paid.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)alp227
(33,271 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 13, 2013, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)
15 DEMOCRATS: Baldwin, Baucus, Bennet, Blumenthal, Boxer, Cantwell, Coons, Gillibrand, Harkin, Hirono, Klobuchar, McCaskill, Murray, Tester, T. Udall
4 REPUBLICANS: Ayotte, Blunt, Graham, Isakson
I know one of the Nay votes was Sen. Cornyn (R-TX). Don't know who else. Neither the senate nor Library of Congress has the names of who voted how.