Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Not Eligible for Shield Law?
Drew writes "Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), a co-sponsor to the Free Flow of Information Act 2005, has said that he does not expect bloggers to receive the protections proposed by the shield law under consideration. From the article: 'Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?' The bill is supposed to restore the Free Press in the US, Lugar said. But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?"
As an answer (I know, I shouldn't try)...
Lets start with WikiPedia:
What dismisses my boss from being a journalist, when he tells me that production is ramping up, and I should hurry to get the new systems in place? He's disseminating information about a current event.
Was Ben Franklin being a common ruffian when he wrote the famous Dogood letters?
What I'm suggesting is... maybe there shouldn't be a definition for Journalist beyond what is accepted in common use. I think it's dangerous to put an 'unreasonable cost of entry' into a field that is supposed to be about free information. I also hate to put 'Media Conglomerate' employees in a category beyond the rest of us.
...At least not without a way ANYONE can freely apply for the same
benefits. Of course, the article explains this part of my the
point better than I do.
Then again, I'm just one semi-anonymous geek among friends.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Does it really matter if they get the same "protections" as "real" journalists?
I've seen those disregarded quite a bit lately, so where's the benefit?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
sounds like all Americans (except you illegal alien and H1-B dudes) are subject to equal protection.
This actually came up as a debate topic when I was in high school. The topic was something along the lines of "Resolved: that the First Amendment ought to protect journalists from revealing confidential sources." One clever guy on the debate though of a cool argument that if the government really protected "journalists" from revealing confidential sources, that would mean it would have to, at some point, define journalist. Now, however it defines a journalist, it will also have to be the one interpreting it, which effectively means state regulation of journalism: you meet their (self-serving) standards, or you don't get to shield sources. This means the government has three options:
1) Allow anyone to refuse to reveal where they got info, all the time (bad).
2) Allow no one to refuse to reveal where the got info, ever (bad).
3) Arbitrarily pick and choose who counts as a "journalist" and thus must reveal info (bad).
I don't think the right to shield a source should have anything to do with who you are (journalist or not), but some other standard weighing public interest concerns against the need for confidential sources to feel safe.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Why am I not surprised?
A grassroots news dissemination method comes into being and the powers-that-be are doing what they can to crimp it so that it doesn't cause them so much squirming. Journalism is an something you do, not who you are employed by. And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh and his innumerable clones on the radio were they bloggers instead of government propagandists I would demand the same protections for them as given to anyone who communicates information to an audience.
The bill is necessary to help the United States regain its status as an "exemplar" of press freedom, Lugar told the IAPA. "Even as we are advocating for free press (abroad)... we'd better clean up our own act," Lugar said.
I believe that about as much as I believe anything said by the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh, et. al. This bill is, intentionally or not, an usurpation of our rights. Calling feces "cake" does not make it edible, Senator.
Why would he? It's not like he's actually even read the damn thing. It was most likely thrown together by a staffer, under the direction of some lobbyist group, and he's been told "support this, we donated".
That's just how things work these days... sad as that is.
Most bloggers do not charge for their works, therefore they are not billionaires, therefore they can expect no consideration from the current administration.
:)
Bloggers who happen to be billionaires, but still do not charge for their works, will be considered enemy combatants.
Bloggers who do charge for their works, and who are billionaires, are to be called "legitimate journalists" and not bloggers. They will be expected to contribute heavily to the Republicrat or Demolican of their choice.
You know it's true.
Why should "professional" journalists receive special government protection of any kind? The law should protect amateurs and professionals alike. The government has no place deciding which journalists are designated to receive protection under shield laws.
What accountability? Networks and papers run crap all the time that's not correct, and never get called on it. (ie, there's 10,000 dead people in New Orleans; they're eating people in NO, etc...)
Clearly I forgot to equip my +5 Codpiece of Karma.
this is easy. which bloggers are journalists?
if ( blogger_supports_current_powerbase ) {
party_on();
} else {
gitmo_baby();
}
Or maybe you're thinking of the famous Walter Duranty and his stories about how Stalin's famines weren't really happening. Accountability didn't mean he couldn't keep his Pulitzer.
Or maybe you're thinking of the recent coverage about Hurricane Katrina where the cable and network news shows went from saying, "The media is back, baby!" to saying "Most of what we told you was wrong," without even a pause for breath.
I'm not real anxious to create any protected class of "journalists" who aren't subject to campaign speech restrictions that affect everyone else. I'd rather we all just had freedom of the press.
I agree. How about we have citizens that are allowed to express any opinion they want whenever they want via any means they have available.
Journalists carry a moral responsability to be impartial (except on op-ed pieces), check their sources, check their sources' statements, and to print the truth... It's kind of a stretch to say that the guy setting up a blog explicitly intended to badmouth his employer will follow the same standards.
This is laughable. I have seen far more critiques of the facts presented by blogs -- and subsequent retractions, addendums, and changes -- than I see in newspapers, newsmagazines, and etc. Far more. Further, blogs themselves have served as fact checking vehicles for the mainstream media, and have frequently done a bang up job at it.
Modern print and broadcast journalism is driven by profit, not facts, not any underlying dedication to the truth. Take away the profit motive, as you do with blogs, and you have more of an incentive to print facts, not less.
But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?
A constitution should be short and obscure. - Napoleon
Such definitions are not provided. In an ideal world you elect representatives with sufficient honor to not require precise definitions.
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.
Given no clear means of delineating who is or is not covered by the above, I claim everyone belongs. That includes reporters that quote anonymous sources, rich interests that want to run campaign adds and bloggers that want to disseminate their stuff. What is a 'blog' if not a peaceable assembly?
Why do we need a definition, or a 'shield' law? On one hand we want to hang a politician for his press leaks and on the other hand we don't want people thrown under a bus for information. If Rove walks because the DOJ can't compel some 'journalist' to give up names then so be it. Stop throwing reporters in jail.
Liberals take care; most of whatever stretching you do to the word 'press' to get your way is probably also applicable to 'militia'.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
'Journalist' are all those who expresss an opinion that I agree with
At least from the megacorp news networks. A perfect example was the last presidential campaign. Regardless of your political bent, nader was the only "approved" protest candidate.
I find it highly suspect that the Libertarian candidate was on the ballot in
49 states to nader's 38, yet there was almost no coverage. Especially when
both he and the green party candidate got arrested trying to attend the presidential debates.
50 years ago it would have been a major media news item when a presidential candidate on the ballot in 49 states got arrested.
So yeah I'd say the corporate hacks are not journalists either...
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Ahem, earth to Sen. Luger: Nearly all journalists work for corporations, whose primary motivation is profit. They're all businesses.
It appears that if you blog and want to get away with it, you will ned to establish that you are a periodical publishing online. Since periodical is not defined, it may be an irregular periodical, or perhaps they will require Slate or ArsTechica status. Hard to tell. Based on the corporate interests lined up against such a "free speech" law, you should expect some very narrow language in the several-hundred page final draft. It will likely be sandwiched between amandments on prayer in schools and pork funding for some bumfark-nowhere bridge project.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I also suspect that it treads very close to being unconstitutional. If we can't be accused of some crime before 12 jurors by an elected prosecutor without having a chance to face our accusers, then what right has an unelected and highly unrepresentative group of vigilanties (aka journalists) have to accuse us of that same crime before millions of people, while refusing to divulge their source. Jury trials can end in acquittal. Media accusations, however dubious, never go away. And given prior media behavior, i.e. Rathergate, their motive is rather obvious. Dubious and doubtful sources have to be concealed lest we discover how weak they are.
By the way, if you're following the debate over who manages the Internet, the US or the UN/EU/China/Iran, the former Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, has an article supporting the US position, "Keep the Internet Free." The EU, it seems, is running with some very nasty company.
Here's a quote:
--Mike Perry, Seattle, Author: Untangling TolkienHow about the "Pants Test." If an article was not written while wearing pants (pajama bottoms don't count), then you don't get protection under the shield law.
Really though, I think the Congress should just word it broadly and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis whether someone was primarily acting as a journalist or not. As you say, there's really no good way to decide whether someone is acting as a journalist or just going through the motions to allow themselves to hide sources of information. There can be no bright-line test.
-- John.
The First Amendment only applies to "journalists?"
How convenient.
Now SeeBS, NBC, ABC and CNN can go back to manufacturing memos to use against enemy politicians and broadcasting sensational lies when natural disasters occur.
Thank God we can all get back to normal.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
There's long been a saying that freedom of the press applies only to those with the money to own and operate a press.
One interesting about the Internet is that you no longer have to be rich to "publish". Anyone can now act as a journalist without first having the price of entry (or being hired by someone with the price of entry) to the tradition printed press or radio or television. Those kept out the riff-raff by requiring printing or broadcast equipment that most of us couldn't afford.
This bill is really just an attempt to maintain this tradition of press freedom belonging only to the wealthy and to corporations.
So it's not really abridging any freedoms that most of us ever had. It's merely reacting to the internet giving this freedom to the masses, which was never the case in the past.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
That's not what should make your head spin.
Let's say they do nail down a definition for Journalist that everyone can kinda agree on. And when I say that, I say it very skeptically because no one is going to agree on that. So a trite and vague definition will be used.
After this happens, you have to prove that you are allowed this "sheild" by registering as a journalist or obtaining a license. This WILL happen if for no other reason than to be able to collect revenue off of the process.
Now the politicians have a way to define who can and cannot inform the people on their behavior without being subject to jail time. I understand this is the underlying point of the discussion, but the central focus is being put on bloggers to screen the real problem.
Take it one step further into tinfoil hat land, and the government will be able to use this to not only classify who can and cannot use free speech freely, but who is allowed to report on whether or not that speech was really necessary. The implications get pretty nasty after that.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
I'm not making the connection. Just because licensure might be required to be covered under a shield law doesn't mean that suddenly free speech rights are at risk. No one is talking about limiting free speech.
Technically NO ONE has the the "right" to keep confidential sources, it's just acknowledged as a good idea, and is afforded as a "privilege". The first amendment simply does not cover it. The only information the government does not have the power to extract from an individual via subpoena is anything that could be construed as self-incrimination under the 5th amendment. Confidential sources is not even close to meeting this definition, not the least of which is that the journalist is not on trial for anything.
And Other Title Case Woes. ;-)
Why decry the protection being offered to journalists and lament 'blogging', and not see that blogging is nothing from normal speech, and opinion. The crux is:
Why wasn't the argument that all people should have this protection but the argument given was all bloggers, especially those in my 'blogroll' *clique like snicker* shoudl have these protections, so we may add cute little self involved disclaimers lovingly to the bottom of a self involved blogs.
I bet he has already drawn up some cool 18x45 web buttons saying 'my blog is protected and therefore my opinion pwns yours!' (would have to be a small font to fit in a 18x45, but blogs always use shitty small fonts don't they? hey, maybe that is why they should be protected!
Back on topic: the very fact that he laments the use of the word journalism, and then uses the word blogging, as if this is some clearly defined, clearly eligible group (unlike journalism...) that deserves this credit...
Isn't his argument tantamount to saying that all 'blogs' should come with an implied disclaimer: the following is my opinion and may not be accurate, and don't sue me, but if you do I don't mind because I will get my name in a published journal like a real journalist!!1OMG
Isn't it? Do you trust the sanity of someone who makes such a statement, 'publishes' it, and revels (as he is now) that it is on slashdot.
I think one strand of credibility in a journalist is, while they seek to work for bigger publications, the reason isn't to get more 'page hits' or 'traffic' to their opinion, than it is to push fact and great writing to further their reputation and give their plight a larger audience, a plight that has been validated by their ability to move up in the world of journalism.
Such natural elements of selection are not present in the slashdotted world today, and any hyperventilating (like myself), premature-ejaculating (unlike myse.... oh oh oooh, damn...) dickwads can get their lame, easily ripped apart, mocked and spat on, published on slashdot just by including:
1) a reference to a bill
2) the snip 'tech' in the url
3) the word blog
4) quotation marks
There is some semblance of balance to this commentary:
The reason all of this matters, of course, is because it is essential that journalists receive special protections to ensure them freedom of the press. The case of ThinkSecret et alia comes to mind (although that problem largely looks solved now, as TS has managed to report several conflicting rumors relating to today's big Apple event in the span of a week--one could say that they give all insanity equal billing).
Sayeth Dick Lugar:
"I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press," he said. "At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail."
In all of this talk of privilege, there is a mounting fear in some journalism circles that the federal government may want to leverage this "privilege" with a federal licensing program of sorts, which is enough to make some people twitch. How else will this dilemma be solved? And two demerits to the person who pops up and says, "false dilemma!"
He has basically underscored the point, then contradicted himself. We establish that journalism needs protecting, and that libellous/false information needs to be punishable, yet he cannot see that these both point to a law that gives certain limited protections against recourse to certain reputable that is someone who is a journalist by reputation (wether they posts their articles online in reverse chronological order or not...pffffff) and does so under an organisation, rather than as opinion, or is carrying a truth, or rumour - but is still l
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
(n). Yet another -ism or -ist used to convey identity and status upon those who engage in an art they no longer love and based on ideals they no longer practice.
Pardon me while I show my conservative side but this is just an attempt to resuscitate an imagined past (say the 50's with a dash of Edward R. Morrow) that never really existed. There are no more risks than there were back then. They require no more protections than they do now. Journalism is not an integral part of our society, citizens are.
If you are going to convey rights then you need to convey them to all citizens, not just to yet another elitist class that may or may not share your values, will have more rights and protections and have a "get out of court free card" when they engage in their frailties, such as bad judgement.
The fact that the current "poster child" sat in jail when she already had a written document from the person she was protecting that she could speak makes this whole thing patently silly, and decidely false. What's the real motivation for this bill and why does it single out big press and printing houses rather than getting to the core of what journalism is really about? A citizens' duty. All citizens, whether they wear the hat of a lawyer, judge, politician or journalist, have a duty for the common good. If journalism needs more definition then they should setup something like the bar association with their own legal defense fund and canons of practice. Politicians have access but should have no more legal standing than a citizen performing their duty; why should a journalism get more protection when they have no more duty then the rest of us?
"Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me