General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Was Jeff Gannon a journalist? [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If you go to work tomorrow, discover your employer is doing something illicit and come to DU even and write about it...you're a journalist. If you write about it on your blog...journalist. If you report a slant piece based on facts on Fox News...still a journalist. Do it for money...journalist. Do it for no pay...journalist. Write about it and are published in the WaPo...no more or less of a journalist. "
....Michele Catalano (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023389805), journalist?
Again, the shield law doesn't define who is a journalist. Also, there are no protections for journalists in the Constitution. There is no definition of a journalist in the Constitution. The funny thing about this debate is that some believe that no protection is best. The fact is that no protection is exactly what applies to every citizen.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
The First Amendment protects free speech for all, meaning you can say and print anything.
The shield law adds privilege and protection for the practice of journalism. It's similar to licensing for other professions. You can't simply claim to be a doctor or a lawyer and go out and practice medicine or law, respectively.
The law has nothing to do with limiting free speech, impeding the press or preventing anyone from claiming to be a journalist. What it does is determine who qualifies as a "protected" journalist, and it doesn't automatically exclude anyone.
From EFF:
First, the bill defines covered journalist instead of journalist. Although this may seem purely cosmetic, it is a significant substantive improvement. The bill now does not purport to have the federal government define who is a journalist or journalism for all purposes, but only the subset of journalists covered by the shield.
Second and perhaps most importantly, in addition to protecting covered journalists, the bill also contains a Judicial Discretion provision, whereby the judge is empowered to extend the shield laws protection to any person if:
on the specific facts contained in the record, the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case.
The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. It provides an avenue for non-mainstream and citizen journalists to demonstrate that they are deserving of the shield, even if they otherwise fall outside the laws strict definition of covered journalist. Thus, those journalists who may not have been covered by the 2009 law, such as firsttime freelancers or self-publishers who cannot prove a connection to an entity, are not automatically excluded. The provision is not perfectthe legitimate news-gathering language is a bit of a bitter pill to swallowbut it constitutes a vast improvement over the past attempts that we have criticized.
Third, the newly approved definition drops the requirement that the journalist be a salaried employee.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect