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'?"
A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in a free press. Why is that? Because a truly free press in the US would show both Democrats and Republicans as the scum that they are. Luckily, that's what we're beginning to see with blogs. The faults in the system are being exposed. And out come the politicians, trying to dam up that freedom of expression gusher before it's too late for them.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Especially considering that the "mainstream press" is relying more and more on the bloggers for their news. As I see it, this is nothing more than freelance journalism, which is now and always has been a respected and vital part of the mainstream news agencies. Certainly the distinction has been made that freelance journalists are journalists by trade whereas bloggers are full time (x) and only part-time journalists, but is this is fair distinction to make, as many freelance journalists also act as consultants, analysts, etc.?
#include "humorous_pop_culture_reference.h"
What's wrong with defining "journalist" as anyone who publishes, or produces for publication, descriptions of real events derived from multiple corroborated specific sources"? Where "publish" means "offers for distribution to anyone in the public, without restriction beyond small fees", and which is subject to the "fair use" provisions for redistribution, and where "source" means "an identified witness to the events or physical evidence of the events"?
Even though that would leave out much of today's class of "journalists" in the "mainstream media", who are merely PR agents rather than "reporters", who are insiders rather than agents of the public, it still describes exactly those people to whom privileges, such as shielding from prosecution for telling what they know, are crucial. Both for their protection, and for ours: the journalism consumers, the public, which is really shielded, and which has the right to a "press" that is free to inform us. Legitimate politicans and other citizens have those needs, too. What are they afraid of?
--
make install -not war
I think some bloggers should qualify.
I think time should be a factor.
I think the number of articles you publish should be a factor.
I think that your publication is always available to read by the public should be a factor.
----
So I would call person who regularly writes articles for public consumption and who has been doing so for at least a few months a journalist.
I would also say that anyone who started to write for an organization composed of qualified journalists could gain that status faster.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
For the most part, bloggers are people who merely react to things in the news.
Journalists are the ones who provide the news. In my opinion, as a general term, bloggers are NOT journalists.
This is nothing more nor less than the Blogger Control Act of 2005. It is the last dying gasp of the 'mainstream media' to remain relevent in the face of the change we all see coming. Ten years ago the idea of government regulation of journalists would have received universal condemnation, but fear is forcing the press to do something very stupid.
Once the government gets into the business of handing out official press badges it will serve to draw a nice sharp line between the MSM and the bloggers, with one group getting to continue as things are now while the bloggers get pretty much driven out of the US IP space. Don't believe me, think I'm daft? McCain Fiengold will see to it. Once bloggers are offically outside of the 1st Amendment's protection, that it only applies to Press Guild members, political topics will be pretty much off limits. Yes this will include Slashdot within a month or so of an election.
And for awhile the Press will be happy with this new law they are buying..... but only for awhile. Then they will learn the true power of the Dark Side of Government.
Democrat delenda est
The reasonable person standard is a common use in courts. The whole reason you use "reasonable" person is so that then courts (and jury's) can make decisions about specific cases.
You dont actually WANT to define reasonable, because it can change over time. The reasonable person standard, however, makes it clear that if there is a problem, the courts and peers will decide.
This is common in contract, liability, even criminal law. WHy not use it here?
With licensure comes a defined criteria one must meet to be licensed. By its very definition, some people will fall outside that definition. Those people will not be protected. This is a possible first step to quashing free speech.
If it is clearly defined that you are not protected by the shield law, it is safe to assume that you could be arrested for distributing information without a license if you attempt to protect your source. If this is the case, how long until politicians change the definitions and requirements for licensure to begin omitting parties that they would like to silence? Or begin altering the definition of source?
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.
Yet, the journalist still becomes imprisioned, how nice. Your statements are true in that as it stands, all citizens can be arrested for not divulging sources requested by a subpoena. It is this very lack of definition that allows all of us to speak about unsavory events. Now if you change that dynamic by defining two distinct groups, one that is afforded that protection and one that is not, you create an "information class". This information class will be smaller than the existing "journalist" population, that you can be sure of. This in turn will limit the outlets that whistleblowers can go to.
How long till this legislature is used to define OpEd's based on some criteria? It in and of itself is not threatening free speech itself, but it is the key to opening that door.
And where is that power explicitly enumerated?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"