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

[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).