"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.
= new reply since forum marked as read