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?
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.
Hmm..Journalist....
Doesn't it have something to do with fail-safe filesystems?
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
You are right, only logged in users should be considered Journalists, Anonymous cowards and the like are just slime.[/sarcasm]
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
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.
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"
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.
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
They used to pass out press badges or press cards to members of the press that got them special privs. I remember my dad's let him park in handicapped spots, fire lanes, etc. when covering stories in Chicago, back in the 1970s.
"Member of the Press" meant something. It sounds like that idea isn't going away.
Part of it is going to stem from who gets invites to functions as "members of the press". Can you get into Disney's "Press Days" event? How about an invite from Company X to their press event?
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Katrina was the greatest storm ever! (Even though it was a cat 3 when it hit land and possibly a cat 1 when the levies broke (because of the ground they were built on, not the design))
I hear there's a war over there, to protect personal freedoms and instill democracy. Guess I'll move my blog, err, homepage, from joelsanda.blogspot.com to joelsanda.blogspot.iq.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
I can't give you a definition of a "journalist" but I know one when I see one!
Well you can kiss your First amendment Good bye.
this is easy. which bloggers are journalists?
if ( blogger_supports_current_powerbase ) {
party_on();
} else {
gitmo_baby();
}
And most journalists aren't responsible to anyone either. The editor just makes sure the story flows and will sell newspapers. Not counting the real hits you get from googling "false AP stories" or looking at http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/06/company_corr ect.html , I run out of fingers and toes counting the number of incorrect stories about tech companies and their products that have run on CNet, ZiffDavis, and other "real" news sites with "real" journalists in the past year.
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.
Further, Opinion or "editorial" is exactly what most "Journalism" is. Since dry fact reporting is something that can easily be done by an automated system without human intervention.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
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.
Journalists carry a moral responsability to be impartial
What planet are YOU from?? Everyone has biases, and it's absolutely impossible to be completely impartial. Journalists aren't some higher species who can observe without judging, they're people like everyone else, and they all have their own opinions which color their reporting whether they intend it or not.
The only honest path is to admit their inherent biases so that they can be taken into account, not pretend they don't exist. Journalism as a profession is frankly bullshit, journalism is something someone DOES, not something someone IS.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Journalist = someone reporting the news or a message. News = Anything someone (no matter how significant) may want to know (which includes personal and business bloggers) Now what do I complain about with this out of the way.
I don't preview or spellcheck.
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
Free press is not free-as-in-beer, so a journalist may end up having to pay dearly for this freedom, such as jail (or in some cases in some countries) worse.
I define a journalist as someone who serves the public interest and is willing to take risks to do so. I don't think a lot bloggers fit the bill (although there are some that certainly do).
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
'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!
to the Republican party?
There was a time when I wasn't ashamed to be associated with them, now it seems they are trying to out-do the kooky left for crown title of loony-bin material.
Free speech indeed...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
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 Tolkienyou'd think, wouldn't you?
lately, I've seen more "who gives a shit what the plebs think" mentality out of most politicians than you can shake a stick at. I'd almost be willing to wager that he just doesn't care...
on a side note, I like that the first post here is a direct copy and paste of the second post in the discussion on the actual article's site. That's class for ya right there...
So all people are equal, but Journalists will be more equal than others. I am disturbed by the idea of granting special legal priveleges to one particular profession (unless the profession was programmers - that'd be cool!).
[Insert pithy quote here]
How 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.
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.
=> Bloggers are Journalists
Cant have those pesky citizens running around speaking their mind. Nope cant have that.
But we can allow the 'journalists' that have been bought and paid for by the parties. Yep, its ok to let them talk.
What another f-ing scam.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Any day you get to correctly use "fucktard" in a sentence, be it with the family, at work, or on slashdot, is a good, good day.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
OK, people. This is pure batshit insanity all around.
first, just because it's a blog doesn't mean the blogger is a journalist, half of these are purely personal journal sites that are now called blogs because that's the "in" term to refer to often updated things. Any law that presumes that something posted is (or isn't) journalism is silly.
Further, free speech should be strongly maintained for "bloggers", for just that reason -- whether they're journalists, personal diarists or political activists, a law applied to "blogs" will hamper all of them.
Should PACs and campaigns be able to abuse blogs? No. Will they try? Yes. The problem then is controlling blogs (and websites, etc.) being used not just to express political opinion, but being paid for by politicians or interest groups to do so. Hell, it seems to me like a good policy to extend the requirement of "paid for by the blah campaign"
requirement to everything -- if you're getting paid by a campaign or PAC to produce media, you have to disclaim it loudly, period.
Am I missing something?
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Only one thing should determine if someone is a programmer, journalist, cook, landscaper, etc. Whether the person in question can perform the job. Past experience is a far better indicator than any licensing or crap like that.
Think of it this way:
What makes Linus Torvalds (or whoever) a programmer?
His credentials?
His schooling/training?
Or his work?
That is the beauty of freedom in the marketplace or otherwise. Those that can, simply do.
I think you have the 2 confused.
Reporters have an obligation to be impartial, report the facts only, etc.
Journalists have no such obligation. ( Though they should be honest when they are winging it, and let you know ). They get to inteject their own agenda into the 'facts'.
But they still should be protected, even when they are annoying, or just plain wrong.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why shouldn't bloggers be protected like other journalists? Since there's no concrete definition of journalism (and yes since websters has two separate definitions, bloggers most definately can fall under the "someone who keeps a journal".)
In my opinion, if some whack wants to distribute pamphlets saying that the government has some sort of secret conspiracy, he has every right to do so.
I, in turn, have every right to avoid him and not listen to any crap he has to say.
Conversely any website that I might go to may have false information on it. But again, I take everything with a grain of salt. After all, EVERYONE has some agenda. (Oh wait, that's just my opinion...but aren't you glad you're entitled to your own?)
So if I work for some company, is it ok for me to post their trade secrets on my blog, and then hide behind the first amendment when they try to sue me? "Hey man, sorry about that, freedom of speech nullifies those nondisclosure agreements I signed when you hired me. I'm a journalist after all."
It's not so simple.
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
You are welcome to think so.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Yes, blogs are out there, and possibly even revealing all the corruption in current politics. However, the problem that blogs face (right now) as a credible news source is the same kind of problem that video games face. The majority thinks that both subjects are just something for kids. This is why a lot of blogs aren't taken seriously (even the few that possibly should), and this is the same reason M rated games are being torn apart in the media as 'bad for children'.
Until the public can realize that some (I know there's a lot of garbage out there, but bear with me) bloggers are actually serious about reporting news and telling people what it actually means to them, then people will continue to look at blogs as unreliable because it's just a 'kid thing'. If we can get a website actually known that's devoted to listing real news reporting blogs, internet journalists aren't going to make a real dent in the grand scheme of journalism. Maybe on the local level, but not enough to get the same kind of protection the networks will get.
That's just my opinion though. If you'd like to 'correct' me, please don't use a torch to do it.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
If a Journalist can write it, then why can't I? As an American we all have the right of free speech.
I don't understand. The bill covers "any entity that disseminates information by... electronic, or other means and that publishes a... periodical in print or electronic form"
An entity is something that has its own independent existence. That covers people as well as companies, and would certainly cover even a loosely organised group of people. An electronically published periodical would seem to me to include a blog, as well as news sites and other more traditional information sources.
Unless the terms have some specific legal meaning that I'm unaware of, what exactly is the problem?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
OK, try this:
;) ). Yet, many of these people were definitely journalists. A blogger, writing about the same subjects as their 'zine forebears, could have a readership in the thousands, or millions, purely due to the increased coverage of the technology. Were 'zine authors not "writers" or "journalists", just because they had small circulation publications?
A "journalist", literally, would be someone who is for or contributes to, a "journal". What is a blog but a person's journal?
OK, that might not be a great basis for argument. How about this - in many eras, there have been tiny or one-person magazines published. In the 80's and 90's, that was known as the 'zine movement. These folks, on average, often had circulations in the hundreds (if not dozens
This law, and others like it, fly in the face of the guarantees of the Constitution, especially the protection of rights codified in the 9th and 10th amendments.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Newspapers printed on recycled paper are going to be given 100% immunity from all legal implications of their actions, because a new buzz word was invented to describe newspapers printed on recycled paper, and thus it was granted a special case.
Are all drivers formula one drivers, and are all cyclists bike couriers? Are all bloggers even news reporters? If you are a blogger, are you implying your opinion is more reliable and thus should be protected? The very fact that this is now an issue implies no protection for any non 'blogging' free speech. Can anyone else see how ludicrous this is.
'Web Log' is a description of a TYPE of content on the web that forms a log. Today it is used to describe a TECHNOLOGY more than anything, and 'log' type website spring up where log type websites shouldn't (and break all kinds of usability).
*IF* you want to say the 'shield law' covers everyone, then it would cover people writing for content that may be described as 'log' content.
Somehow implying that the 'log' element of writing should garner the user 'protection' is not just stupid, but twatish.
This is precisely the reason why I hate such words. Instead of people just writing, and doing what they do, this swallows it all up, puts a label on it, and then people confuse it with other words. Blogging isn't journalism - and 99.999% of bloggers are dumb shit morons (ok this bit is flame, and proudly so) who think what they are doing is somehow important - not because they are simply writing - but because they are 'blogging' that is writing in the form of a log.
How bloody preposterous. This tries to steal all ownership of the brilliance of the web and place it into people who want to orgasm over buzz words - and think that blogging is so amazing, and this in turn forces the hand of the news channels who start 'talking about this amazing trend'.
I am just so frustrated by this. It is pathetic, and the very nature of the twisted logic ('blogging gets you fired', 'blogging does this', 'blogging does that') threatens real world freedoms by clouding up issues.
The question is, are people protected in their speech, and clouding the issue with the voice of dumb-shit squalid-filth-spewing elitist academic rejects who pose under the banner of buzz word # 8763 (blogging) is a threat to the reasoning that needs to be in place to balance between upholding accountability and protecting freedom of speech.
A 'voice' in any medium can be attacked, be it me shouting drunken insults at the best man at someone's wedding, or publishing divorce rumors for a celeb couple in a pre-menopausal women's magazine. Society needs to agree how to balance this freedom of peoples speech, yet protect NEWS reporters, peoples who duty and role in society is should be to investigate, expose, clarify and enlighten everyone in their work, from being silenced through fear of financial loss and other harm.
Saying what you want, and then blaming it on 'blogging' a word that any self described 'blogger' cannot even define (hint google 'define:blogging' will probably not get it 100% right in this sham of a world) , will damage real freedoms because for every perceived leak or grey area extra shoring needs to be added to ensure an accepted balance is in play.
Break the law by breaking a non-disclosure contract? Don't sue me, it was a blog! a blog I tell you! You know, as opposed to any other form of digital storage, like a word document...
If I ever see 'blogging' or any other crap being given special case attention in a law or movement of thinking being catered to bloggers, I will picture myself with a large gun killing the people who are grinning at this self glorification, possibly shooting them in the stomach, before I breath slowly, calm down, and go back to my work.
Damn I hate bloggers because of this.
please type the word in this image: catered
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
'Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists?'
;-)
How the hell do you parse that? And I wonder about the native language of whoever wrote that sentence. Anyway, I can see several possible parsings, none of which are really "native" English, and which have rather different meanings.
Maybe it needs a few commas, semicolons, parens, or something.
(For example why would we not consider them real journalists here, but consider them real journalists somewhere else? And is it the commercial business who are the real journalists, or are the bloggers considered commercial businesses? Lots of good questions buried in there
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
What you are reading now, is an "article" written by me.
This little comment on
I write "articles" in a similar format several times a week
on Slashdot.
Therefore I am a prolific journalist, as is everyone else who
posts here regularly.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I thought the freedom of speech guaranteed to all Americans under the constition was for everyone and not just journalists.
Is it really a crime to say something? What if the president did something or said something that he is embarrased of? Could he declare it "secretative" and punish those who talk about it?
I am agaisnt people releasing secrets that the general population should not know for our security, but government officials should have provided the proper safe guards to prevent the leak in the first place. Not prosecute a citizen for disclosing something that they should have not heard or seen.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
Journalists are those that investigate and report events in the public good, paid or unpaid.
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.
(in case you think this is offensive, a flame or troll, make sure you read to the end)
Whine whine 'no definition of journalism' whine whine. Damnit.
Don't you see there is no definition of blogging you utter retard. You self righteous technologically stunted person you. Why, if you think 'paid and possibly respected journalists who have to content with something called reputation, hence the word reputable, in the phrase reputable source' shouldn't be placed over your wonderful simple life of write-what-I-want, or more accurately:
hit 'blog this' button and write the first thing that comes to my head, with aid of wikipedia, and link shit to every other page that comes from the google top 100.
Why if you think that, do you not think that NORMAL writing shouldn't be the same of writing that tries to be in the vein of a 'log' system.
Do you think that writing content without navigation or context, categories, real accountability, ordered by time descending somehow gives you a legal waiver in what you write?
Well here goes:
00:35 13/10/2005 : Drew is a gay man who likes to have gay sex with animals
13:56 12/10/2005 : Today I ate Ice Cream! Yippeee! read Penny Arcade.
Now, if you want to somehow sue me, or get my source, or somehow circumvent protections designs to allow credible, reputable (i.e. with a reputation, a license if you will) journalists, you can't why? Because my comment above isn't an ordinary comment, it is a blog comment!
That is the magic of blogs - entries, without navigation, in reverse chronological order.
b>Why should entries, without navigation, in reverse chronological order, be treated special? Tell, me damn it, maybe if you cannot find a reason, I will not have to loose it every time I see such stupid stories.
ok.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Given the "definition" above which states which medium is allowed I still do not understand my right or those Others. Am I considered a journalist if get an editorial published in a major newspaper, paid or not? If I reveal information am I protected from not having to reveal my source? If I am "protected" then the only difference is the medium, in which case the law is biased by the medium that I have chosen. If I am not then this law is biased against me by profession, (ie. what I actually do for a living).
"Just remember, it takes a village idiot." -- The Motley Fool.
I was just wondering as the article wasnt clear on this (and indeed, perhaps this is a part of the very issue at stake), are commentators considered journalists? Commentators include Rush Limbaught, Al Franken, Rhandi Rhodes, Sean Hannity, and so on. These people usually are re-diseminating already released news and offering their own opinions on it. A majority of bloggers pretty much fall into this catagory; they are merely commenting on existing news with varying degrees of intelligence. The line starts blurring when bloggers are able to discover a story (Rathergate, and so on), and produce original research & material before other media outlets. So where do the commentators stand in this and where do bloggers stand in relation to them? What about Drudge, is he a journalist? There are plenty of time's hes disseminated atleast partially false information in order to be the first to break it. I fully support a blogger press since it lacks many of the external pressures (so far anyway) that make the mainstream media less likely to dig in particularly political areas in relation to their job security. Thus stories can be broken that would otherwise go unnoticed; by the same token, there is a burden of responsibility on journalists that shouldnt let them squander rights. I do not see that burden in most bloggers as most bloggers are overtly political & partisan, almost painfully so at times. As one poster, whos a journalist said, in this regard I'll perhaps be satisfied if a blogger is willing to goto jail to stand up for this right. Otherwise, it seems unearned. Then again, it seems sad & dangerous to have to go that far to earn a civil right... I welcome any insights.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
"Why am I not surprised?"
... satellite,: enough to qualify
Why do you jump the gun? Reread the first portion which defines those covered.
Coverage from that portion:
Journalist: - print, broadcast; enough to qualify
Blogger: - photographic, electronic: enough to qualify
Rush Limbaugh: - broadcast,
Oh, yeah. "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." Seems you are as guilty as those in government whom you accuse.
> But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?
Any law which defines "journalist" is an attack on the First Amendment.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Main Entry: journalist
Pronunciation: -n&l-ist
Function: noun
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2 : a person who keeps a journal
...let's define 'journalist' as anyone who registers with the government and receives a 'licence to journalistify'. We can give them a little card, stamp the backs of their heads with a barcode and put RFID chips in their skulls, then let them 'free press' away to their hearts' content. Of course, if they do something we don't like...
In an hour long interview 2 weeks ago at National Press Club here
in Washington DC,
Dan Rather responded several times concerning bloggers as journalists.
Dan said you are not a journalist if you blog anonymously.
You are not a journalist if you ignore discordant views, seeking only to
grind in favor of your own predetermined conclusions.
Then Dan said he is old (70), and blogging is new,
so he couldn't say much besides who wouldn't be a journalist.
He mentioned that when he started journalism 50 years ago,
everyone called himself a reporter, except a few with canes (very old reporters).
If you guys didn't have the reading comprehension skills of chimpanzees then you would realize that he's trying to come up with a good definition of journalists, not unsure about what the bill says. In his opinion, bloggers shouldn't be considered journalists, but he expects there to be debate about that.
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'?
The summary misses the point here.
The minute you start letting a government define "journalist", you give it the power to take away Freedom of the Press.
If being a member of "the press" depends on some statutory definition, then Congress could make an end-run around Freedom of the Press by constricting the definition. Creating a statutory definition of a "journalist" would set a very bad precedent for the First Amendment and for the practice of journalism, even if that were not the intended consequence.
It's short, but damn if it isn't 'insightful'.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
we can preserve a journalist for every one that we destroy.
(this is kind of funny if think about what happend to wetlands after a definition was agreed upon.)
this is to remind me to update my Sig
...is not the freedom to obstruct an investigation. If I admit to knowing the name of a murderer, or of a source who has contact with said murderer, I would not have the right to then refuse to relinquish that information without facing criminal charges. The only exception, of course, is when giving that information would result in self incrimination. I see no other article in, or amendment to, the US Constitution which clearly defines such a right. I also vehemently reject the right of clergy to hold confidential the confession of a violent criminal. And I hold a priesthood calling in my church.
Mind providing a link, I heard about the media actually reporting for a change but didnt hear about the retractions of that. Thanks
... and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; ...
So does that mean that bloggers are "journalists" if their blog updates on a periodic schedule?
That Matt Drudge is not a "covered person"?
I don't think, after the Monica Mess (just for starters), that there's any question whether Matt qualifies as a journalist or The Drudge Report as a journal, despite its aperiodicity.
Then there's the folks at Little Green Footballs, Powerline, and Free Republic that caught CBS and Rather with the forged documents. (Powerline is clearly a journal of opinion, while Free Republic is essentially a large-C Conservative Slashdot.)
I think these names need to be brought into the congressional debate on this bill - to get some congresscritters on record about their intent, and to set up court future court tests on whether the exclusion of bloggers is constitutional.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Journalists > Bloggers > Normal information on the web?
How can this Ken idiot (caesar@arstechnica.com) suggest (through a very public and angsty display of 'boohoo why isn't bloging like, as cool as journalism, I am a journalists, I am, take me seriously please! oh go on!') that JOURNALISM cannot be defined, so BLOGGING should be netted in the same catch as journalism.
WTF at least journalism describes the act of writing about news and events and stuff. I could blog about my navel lint and be safe in the warm glow of this 'shield law' which the article fails to coherently describe it, or its relation to blogging:
Blogging Writing stuff and displaying it in reverse chronological order
I also agree that displaying written stuff in reverse chronological order mean that said stuff should be given special case consideration for everything, including but not limited to a free hamburger with every meal at macdonalds.
HOW can he blondly state all that crap in the article about journalism having no definition, and place blogging as a special case of content?
it, wha... ju... ff... in.. in explicable!!!
sigh.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Since when did the "freedom of press" only cover journalists?
--E--
blogging is NOT journalism, journalists are held to a higher standard than your average cheeto-covered, 400 pound and living with parents blogger.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service.
I fail to see how this contradicts anything I have said. And Lugar himself, the author of the bill, specifically stated that bloggers would not be considered journalists.
Consider libel and slander. Without laws that protect us from lies, we can be damaged-- reputations undone, loss of income, even our families. So journalistic standards have to have a basis. If journalists cited all sources, then Woodward would have never heard from his now deceased Deep Throat.
Bloggers range from very smart and ethical to the most obscene of blatherers. At least journalists try to ascribe to standards of communications conduct, something that's not imposed on any other kind of speech, saving hate speech in some jurisdictions.
It's not the corporate mob that Lugar is trying to protect, rather to define the basis of individuals that must ascribe to responsible speech above that which is enjoyed by everyone as free, as in truth, fiction, lies, specious nonsense, and what ever one chooses. I applaud the distinctions.
That said, the running dog lackey sycophantic idiots that swallow big fat Disneyland-on-the-Potomac lies deserve a dog's death.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
... and endanger the necessary protection for credible and reputable (dealing in the currency of reputation, anyone can get a damn 15 minutes (or shorter with slashdot-effect) of fame on slashdot - which is why I suggested a new source moderation guid)) journalists?
Idiots like this may give ammunition to bush and his 'hey, let em bwoys have their fun and torchure dem inmates yall ok?' attitudes in society to silence and penalise outspoken reputable journalists.
Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) recently revealed that so-called bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists by the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, which will include provisions detailing "shield law" protections for journalists. In effect, this could mean that it will be open season on those pesky bloggers once this bill passes.
Clarification: he implies that a 'blogger' (oh ffs) will have less rights and less freedom of speech after this bill. Now, not having read it, I am assuming it is not removing freedom of speech from non protected people (unless this is typical bush administration naming, where green laws give more freedom to pollute, and pro education laws give less money to schools...) but giving special case to those who wish to report truth without fear of being silenced, yet, because they have a reputation, still be at risk for reporting falsehoods, or overstating their position.
(and the hyperventilating premature-ejactulation crowd of bloggers never overstate their case... the word zOMG!!11 comes to mind...)
So by stating it will be 'open season' is so lame, it needed to be brought out.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
What makes Linus Torvalds (or whoever) a programmer?
All of the above, because they all amount to the fact that he's programmed at a competent level.
I think the GP is trying to point out that a blogger -> journalist is like pre-schooler -> graduate student. While I don't fully agree with the point, because it doesn't take into account things like livejournal's ea_spouse, who, if we accept their credentials, is more than qualified to express concerns about EA. The problem is, do we consider their credentials as valid? And I think that is where the issue with the shield law comes into effect.
For example, what if ea_spouse is an articulate 14-year-old gamer that hates EA, or worse yet, is a person in a rival company, or even more damning, a former employee that is just bitter. Then a shit storm around EA has been caused for nothing (potientially causing a loss of business for EA) without any liability.
I wish I could suggest a solution for this situation, but I can't. And I don't trust the government to come up with a good one either.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Technically they have not been granted due process. The restriction is not part of their sentence, and indeed, the law applies to CMs who fulfilled their sentences even before the law was put into place. The way that it is rationalized is that the law is not an action to restrict the rights of CMs, it's an action to prevent future crimes.
Back to the topic at hand, I would say that probably a journalist shield law is legitimate under the 14th amendment insofar as a) it's a federal law, not a state law and b) it protects the right of anyone to BECOME a journalist--occupation clearly denotes certain privileges, for example as a police officer. Would anyone go so far as to say that police officers have no extra privileges (high speed pursuit, handling of illegal materials, whatever) under the 14th amendment?
"The bill is supposed to restore the Free Press in the US," Lugar said
Really?!?!?! I did not know that the Press was not free in the US. Doesn't the Constitution of the United States of America GUARENTEE that? Doesn't it already exist?
Hmmmmmmm......"Something smells rotten in *ahem* Washington"
What defines a journalist? Easy, anyone who writes a story to inform others. At least that is how I look at it.
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
This really makes my head spin. It's his law and even he isn't sure how the definitions should work. You'd think a sponsor of the bill might have an opinion about something like that.
Please mod parent Redundant until you can't mod it any more. This is a copy-paste from an Ars forumite.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Groklaw should qualify as well.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...if you are blogger, join one of these associations, whichever you feel is more appropriate. Can't hurt dealing with the fedmonster.
a ssociations/
BTW, Lugar has always been a NWO *goon*, nothing new there
http://www.shgresources.com/resources/newspapers/
OR, perhaps a group of lads here would be interested in forming an "open source press association"? We'll use that name in fact.. We can not only self accredit ourselves, but I propose we get to wear funny hats and give ourselves exalted titles...
I am self appointed Imperial Grand Poombah, and I wear a boonie hat that has been run over and mowed before, it has mucho character and qualifies as funny looking...I'll sew PRESS into it somehow
next guy, grab cool titles before they are gone
I R'ed TFA, but I can't tell for sure what this law is supposed to shield journalists FROM. Can anyone enlighten me?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Tell me, please, which journalists am I thinking of?
Just because there are a few journalists who, through their blog, cut out the twice-spun and pre-chewed bullshit that I hate just as much as you, and provide the news first-hand, doesn't mean all bloggers should be referred to as journalists.
Let's talk numbers here. Of the millions of blogs on the internet, how many do you think are straight from a hard-working journalist and are actually worth reading? Now, how many are written by teenage angst-baskets, or worse, middle-aged soccer moms who write about what they heard someone talking about on the radio yesterday?
All 3 examples deserve to be covered by the Shield Law, but only 1 deserves the name "journalist"
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?
Why do we need a definition, or a 'shield' law?
Because the Supreme Court ruled that (despite their claims and history of defending them by passively-resisting all the way to jail) the free press clause of the First Amendment does NOT give journalists a privilege to refuse to reveal their sources when that is demanded by the legal system.
That can be fixed by a constitutional amendment to clarify the issue. Or it can be fixed by a law to explicitly grant such a privilege.
A law may be less stable (since it's subject to easy revision and relatively easy overturning). But it's a LOT easier and quicker to get into effect.
Also: You can use a law to debug the wording, then promote it to an amendment if courts find something in the constitution to trump it while it's still just a law.
But such a law will serve as a statement of congress' intent that their OTHER laws shouldn't be interpreted to mean journalists must reveal sources unless the other law explicitly says so. (It can also serve as a statement that CONGRESS intepreted the First to mean what the reporters claim). Making laws to implement the constitutional guarantees in particular situations - as long as they don't REDUCE the extent of the guarantees to less than the Framers' clear intent - is within the powers of the Congress.
With such a law in place the courts may back off, making the amendment unnecessary.
(Or the Supremes might decide the right of litigants to due process of law trumps a shield law. In that case promotion to an amendment will be necessary.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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
Interesting idea. I'm not sure he thought that far through it but if he did, it's quite brilliantly evil.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
The New York supreme court ruled in Banco Nacionale de Mexico v. Narco News et al. (Dec. 5, 2001) that "this court finds that Narco News is a media defendant and is entitled to heightened protection under the First Amendment (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, supra, 376 US, at 270-280)". See: NY Supreme Court Rules Online Coverage Protected Speech.
Thing is, if we draw a line in the sand and say on one side you're a journalist, and on the other side you aren't, then what standard are you going to use? Is it simply that a journalist is paid for his or her craft? Put some ads on a blog, and you're paid too. It can't be whether people pay for the privelege of seeing your work - just look at the number of quality free newspapers out there. Is it that the work makes it into print form? Not only is it easy enough for a blogger to print up 20 copies to hand out to friends, but there are plenty of professional journalistic sites that publish a lot of articles on their sites that never make it to the print versions.
Then there's the issue that the line between who is and is not a journalist has been historically fuzzy. How about the colonialists who printed the leaflets in favor of independence leading up to the Aerican Revolution? The pirate radio station operating behind enemy lines? The resistance rags of WWII occupied France?
While I'm at it, where would Matt Drudge fit into the whole thing?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
That's just 133tism talking. They're not real journalists because they don't write for the registration required NYT. They're not real journalists because they don't get paychecks from ink-on-newsprint operations. They're not real journalists even though they beat the regular news organizations to so much of the news.
They're not real journalists, and we should take every opportunity to remind them of this. Especially since I -- Mr. Lugar to you -- want to remain on the friendly side of the real press, without whom I have a snowball's chance in h311 of getting re-elected next time around.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
What you just witnessed was stage 1 of the formation of a guild. The government has decided to grant "journalists" special privileges. As a necessary part of this, it's also taken on itself the role of defining "journalist". From now on, a journalist is what the government says is one.
Stage two is industry insider capture of the definition process, and its formal transfer to the journalists themselves. At which point, the guild is fully formed, and they start pressing for action against "unlicensed" non-members, cf: doctors.
Hearty agreement.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
(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
Why doesn't a similar issue come up with regard to attorney-client privilege? Why can't anyone, who doesn't want to testify against a person, claim attorney-client privilege? Is it because of the need for a law degree? Or the need to be earning a living as a lawyer? If we can accept such constraints on who is allowed to give private counsel, why do we have a problem saying that you need to be in the business of reporting information to the general public?
Remember, just because it isn't enumerated in the constitution, that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.
That's true, however the government has an explicitly enumerated power to subpoena information.
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.
Just print each entry on the blog, bring it to a coffeeshop, and now you're a journalist!
(even though there's millions of reuters/AP articles that never make it to print - like blog articles, and many times the articles are not accurate - like bloggers, and AP/Reuters put their articles on feeds - like bloggers with RSS)
Hrm... what's the difference.. I guess you need a degree...
We have a "priest-penitent" privilege that applies to faiths other than Catholics... all without getting the constitutional jibbly-jibblies about who is or isn't priestly or penitent enough to qualify for the privilige.
Is there a reason to think we won't get to a similar equillibrium about journalists once we decide to go down that road? I mean, that's a big reason detractors cite against a statutory shield for journalists.
All the same, do we want a shield law? I mean, the other privileges we have are bound up in the third-parties' Fifth Amendment rights: we want people to be able to talk to attorneys, doctors, therapists, immediate family members and religious counsel without fear that their seeking help or guidance will land them in the dock. Who does a shield law protect? I mean, the guilty whistleblower is likely to get some sort of immunity if he should testify in open court and anonymous sources are less credible than named ones.
Just thinking aloud in that last paragraph. I hadn't thought about this since starting law school.
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
Since when did journalists become special class citizens?
To me, freedom of speech means the freedom to NOT speak.
1. nondisclosure of sources is not freedom of expression, so the determination of who is covered and who is not is therefore not a first amendment issue.
2. Who has freedom of speech IS clearly defined: insofar as the government is explicitly prohibited from abridging free speech.
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.
It has never been the case that whistleblowers have a "right" to be anonymous. This has been a commonly followed convention, because it serves the public good.
Yet, the journalist still becomes imprisioned, how nice.
Yes, for violating a subpoena. Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean the government can't issue subpoenas. My claim was that the ONLY information the government cannot legally coerce is self-incriminating information. A journalist can still be charged with non-cooperation of subpoena, which has nothing to do freedom of speech. they can say whatever they want, but they may be required to name sources. This in no way whatsoever abridges an individual's right to express an opinion, report on events, or redress government. How? How does this possibly abridge this right?
If we agree on anything, it's that journalists being able to have anonymous sources helps society. But where we differ appears to be that you consider that a right that is granted by the first amendment, and I think it is no such right, but should be a privilege as granted by some criteria established by law.
The OP was stating that shield laws put first amendment rights at risk by establishing an arbitrary protected class for protecting anonymous sources. I claim this false because anonymity protection has nothing to do with free speech rights and because free speech rights are enjoyed by a VERY well defined group, everyone, no exceptions.
I think that part of their worry stems from trying to define who is covered based on catagory, not product.
That said, I whole heartidly agree with your first paragraph as a starting point for what defines a journalist. The problem with (some/many) bloggers is that they have not taken the precautions to be reporters (which inherently implys unbiased telling of events without opinion), and (some/many) times only convey a side of the story that fits their idiology. I've read some blogs that try their hardest to try and just report, and I've read blogs that have no interest in being balanced and unbiased. What makes one a journalist and another just a pundit? The definition presented in the parent post moves in the direction of answering that, but it uses the product as the test, not the label that is applied to the writer.
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
Criminal investigations will have to progress by gathering evidence instead of hersay.
If people can't talk to reporters without fear of reprocussions, there can be no true freedom of the press. Only freedom to repeat what don't upset those in power.
If a report reports on a crime by a source, then law enforcement can start investigating through other means.
for example:
someone claims that the police are taking bribes. Then they can start there investigation by looking at accounts, and purchases of the police department in question. you know investigating.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?"
Easy: YOU DON'T!
What part of "Congress shall make no law" doesn't he understand? Heck, I don't see how Congress has the power to protect Valerie Plame's identity to begin with...
it's a process people go through when they disseminate information.
Fact check/ keep there biases to a minimum(perferable completly out)/ maintain a professional approach to doing there job.
There's a journalist.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We have let a madeup word blur what a journalist is.
Has I have owned the domain http://www.zines.com/ for well over 8 years, See BTW below. I would guess it qualifies me as well, but my role has been more as an editor then journalist. Of bloggers, I would say they could be journalists. But Blogs are closer to being like Punditry. Un-original, un-researched, regugitations.
However, I can't see the test being anything that could exclude them from calling themselves journalists. If the laws say X number of stories in Y timeframe that isn't workable.
The test shouldn't be, did the person write stories that where "printed" on-topic to what they are trying to get protection. If somebody wrote a few fiction stories or opinions then went out an slammed a politico for some misdeed without showing clear proof. If they claimed Journalistic Privledge, then that a fair indication they are not covered. That falls into slander, if they can provide some documentation, like signed checks or pictures that's proof. Protect the source is one thing, have no proof is another.
A pundit should not be covered, they don't report anything. Unless your Bob Novack and your reporting on the identity of a undercover CIA agent. Or using the cover of a reporter to "report" for a fictious "News Organization" in the whitehouse press corps. I am slamming Novack because he's not reporting anymore. He's a full blown pundit. A pundit is a puppet.
Republican bashing aside, Air America barely squeaks by as a Actual News 0rganization. They do research, they report and opinionate much to the same degree like, I grudging admit Fox News is also an Actual News 0rganization.
Where as Talon "News" fails completely. From Wikipedia;
--
The Standing Committee of Correspondents, rejected Gannon's application for a Capitol Hill press pass because of Talon News'lack of independence from a political organization. Committee chairman Jim Drinkard wrote in his letter:
The application for accreditation to the press galleries states that "members of the press shall not engage in lobbying or paid advertising, publicity, promotion, work for any individual, political party, corporation, organization, or agency of the Federal Government." Talon News has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the committee that there is a separation from GOPUSA/Millions of Americans.com.
--
Gannon was a blogger, but not a journalist. Other more topical orgnizations like http://www.circusnews.com/ are journalistic in nature and I would think that one of their self imposed limits would be where their reporter strayed off the topic (in this case Circuses) and into say Astronomy. Nothing really incendiary there (heh heh), however it's outside their organizations obvious field. This does NOT make it NOT NEWS, If that was to be an opinion piece in Astronomy, is the reporter from Circus News still covered as a Journalist? I would think in that case, no. If they were to report on any subject that could be construded as a legitimate news story then it's still a legit story by an 'employed' reporter. Just outside Circus News' normal market.
Likewise if a so called 'Blogger' wrote a real news story then they are acting as a journalist. A blogger should be seen in much the same light as the difference between a Taxi Driver and Your Mom. Both can drive you somewhere, like a hospital or a friend's house, but the diffence boiled down is one get's paid to do it as a profession (unless your Mom is a cabbie). But both can drive.
The test for a Journalist should be in the simplest term;
If you are acting as a Journalist at the time, then your a Journalist. If your using the claim to cover most crimes then your not one. It would get gre
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
is that what we are talking about?
it definately is related to the difficulties
the slashdot briefing is writing about.
I'll keep on reading, the slashdot article
might turn up some interesting posts.
Give it your best shots.
In fact it is also spelled out in the 5th amendment, you have a right not to testify [even] against yourself.
Anytime you have the state trying to pry into someone's brain under threat of force, you have a problem.
People have a right to privacy, 'journalist' or not.
The constitution doesn't say anything about journalist, it says 'freedom of the press'. If it's printed, it's protected, how about that?
Abolish Copyright. Restore Freedom.
They are trying to solve the wrong problem, and are doing a poor job of it. The ideal we are trying to protect is the information, and confidential sources need a measure of protection in furtherance of that ideal. It is not the journalists that need protecting.
Consider the Valerie Plame case. Judy Miller covered up a crime in order to report another story. Not only was she the only witness, her testimony was the only evidence of the crime. In essence she chose to restrict the free flow of information about a crime, which is contrary to the general purpose of freedom of the press. How can we hope to enforce laws that prevent the disclosure of an operative's identity if they may be circumvented merely by disclosure to a journalist? They are the people who are able to cause the most damage by publishing that kind of information.
My suggestion is language like the following: "No person shall be compelled to disclose the identity of a confidential source unless that person has personally witnessed a crime committed by that source."
The wording is simple, concise, and avoids messy definitions about who is and who isn't a journalist. Hearsay is inadmissible in court anyway, so there is no need to single out journalists for special treatment. Whistleblowers are safe as long as they don't commit a crime in the journalist's presence. Bloggers get the same protection as a big media conglomerate, protecting the essence of freedom of speech.
This space intentionally left blank.
Because I'm sick of reading people getting them mixed up...
The first amendment guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Whether someone is a journalist or not, freedom of speech is always a guaranteed right. Therefore, who is determined to be a journalist has no bearing on freedom of speech.
What is at issue is freedom of the press. In particular, people have been arguing over confidentiality of sources. The idea is that by allowing people to speak to reporters without fear of reprisal (even if the government can't prevent you from speaking, your boss may still be able to fire you or someone who doesn't like what you said can still follow you into a dark alley and beat you up), they are more likely to reveal corruption, incompetance, abuse, etc. that society is better of knowing about.
That's where you have to decide who constitutes the "press" and who does not. Both freedoms are listed in the first amendment, but they're different issues.
It sounds like a handgun license.
Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen
"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."
I'm confused. Are you implying that those organizations actually employ journalists?
The other reply to your polite request was a bit rude, so here are some useful links:
a _tporleans/archives/print082732.html1 21515-2539r.htm- na-rumors27sep27,0,5492806,full.story?coll=la-home -headlines
http://www.nola.com/weblogs/print.ssf?/mtlogs/nol
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050928-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la
Another thing you might want to do is read every original transcript of everything Pres. Bush has said since 9/11. You'll never trust a newspaper again.
Another thing that works well is to compare newspapers against themselves six months later. You'll never trust a newspaper again.
God I hope the media don't get any sort of protection. I can't think of many groups that would deserve it less.
---
You have to define a journalist if all journalists are going to get special legal protection. For example, journalists are not required to reveal their sources (usually). Journalists can be present at certain illegal activities and not be charged with abetting (I'm sure a lawyer will correct me).
How do you prevent Frank the drug dealer from setting up a blog and refusing to reveal his sources? How would the police get anything done if everyone refused to reveal their sources?
Personally I think the law needs to change from protecting journalists (which has always been a vague concept) to protecting journalistic activities. The ThinkSecret kid is a law student, not a journalist, but he was dissemenating information in a journalistic fashion and those activities deserve protection.
The ______ Agenda
If they make me get a license, then somebody will insure me. Hmm, that could be useful. In the comicbook Transmetropolitan the main character Spider was insured and used it as club to work mischief. By having a license and insurance your actions have legitimacy. Or at least the threat of lawyers. A license would give the reporter the same professional secrecy standing of a Doctor or Priest. (Scratch Priest, wink wink)
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
The point is that, in the end, interpreting the law is the job of the courts - not congress. And this particular issue - who is and who is not "the press" will remain the domain of the courts until an unambiguous definition is legislated.
It's clear from reading the text of the bill (here), that the senator has tried to make it clear what he means, but the terms employed are problematic: "periodical", "magazine", etc. Whether a particular blog qualifies as "the press" or not is pretty clearly going to be handled case by case, as the issues are murky enough to require litigation. Once again for the libertarians out there: NO, WE ARE NOT ALL "THE PRESS"... at least according to current case law - which is what is relevant here.
The point of all this is: The senator's opinion is irrelevant.
My apologies to anyone who has already pointed this out - it just seems like most people who've commented so far just don't get it... or maybe they know that the senator's opinion doesn't matter, but just want to vent about the issue anyways. But I digress.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
Sounds like a blogger to me.
And where is that power explicitly enumerated?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
On second glance, there's a good number of people talking sense about the role of the legislature and the judiciary. I just had to dig deeper into the posts to find them.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
I dunno, an unaccountable Anonymous Coward posted that. I don't give it any credence. And libel suits, including one I just read this week, are often dismissed when "a reasonable reader" wouldn't ascribe any credence to the publisher. The courts are completely inadequate to police "truth in publishing", except in cases of demonstrable damages (where the courts should collect the "punitive damages" from the perp, not the victim). Otherwise, in your logic, newspapers that can afford to lose some sales can commit libel, or just recruit stupid people.
Even more to the point, my definition requires journalists to do journalism. If Lugar weren't one of the stupid failed lawyers with which we fill Congress, he wouldn't agonize so much over "what is a journalist". A journalist would need to prove they had at least two corroborated sources who said those disgusting lies about your cat. A lying AC blogger doesn't have the truth on their side, or even professional credibility, so they're not shielded.
--
make install -not war
I think your point about unprofessional bloggers applies just as much to those with the "shielded journalist" brand today, who publish uncorroborated stories from anonymous, vested-interested sources (*cough* Karl Rove *cough*). So this is a serious issue that bloggers are forcing, but it by no means is limited to blogging. Of course, we'll see the Congress decide to protect corporate media, regardless of their merit, and abandon unpredictable independents who could "disrupt" the cozy little system keeping politicians connected to the compliant media they crave.
--
make install -not war
yes it is a free speech issue because freedom of the press and free speach are the same article. Irish Samurai makes very valid points. - Government at all times should be limited and watched like a hawk which was the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
Realistically, there is an "assumption of privacy" regarding certain vital social functions. For example, doctors (the client-patient relationship), religions (think confessions), and defense attorneys. Nobody in the press should share in this benifit. For doing so, and drawing a line between "the press" and "common folk", creates a state-sponsored media outlet. This leads to such abuses as protection from classified materials felonies [law.cornell.edu]. It's not that bloggers are not exempt from the shield law provision, but that other forms of press are.
thanks for turning me on to the Dogood Letters. Fascinating! :)
Politicians be damned! We will blog free and will not give up our freedom of speech as a human right!
"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Journalist Jour"nal*ist, n. Cf. F. journaliste.
1. One who keeps a journal or diary; a diarist. Obs.
--Mickle.
1913 Webster
2. One whose occupation is to write for any of the public
news media, such as newspapers, magazines, radio,
television, or internet; also, an editorial or other
professional writer for a periodical.
1913 Webster +PJC
RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
You're almost certainly right, but "these days"? Dude, that kind of thing has been going on for a long time. That's why marijuana is illegal; the dangerous drug angle is what was cooked up to justify that law. In the 50s, a bar owner filed a comlaint over a C&W song about a drunk driver killing a child because it was hurting his business (something you couldn't do nowawadays). I'm not making this crap up; hit a search engine with 'em. The US and any country where there are politicians is like this and always has been.
But does that mean they always have to get away with it? No. Lobbies could be formed to lobby against serving special interests & business using the same tactics, but so far, no one seems to care enough to do that.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
It has never been the case that whistleblowers have a "right" to be anonymous. This has been a commonly followed convention, because it serves the public good.
My choice of the word whistleblower was a poor choice as there are laws dealing with curcumstances that are called whistleblower laws. My choice of vocabulary might have lead to a misunderstanding.
What I was trying to say is people with information that could be regarded as important, yet incriminating, will end up thinking twice before going to a journalist with their story if that journalist does not have this license because they will not be protected as a source.
nondisclosure of sources is not freedom of expression, so the determination of who is covered and who is not is therefore not a first amendment issue.
Your right, it is not a first amendment issue, yet it is interwoven with the concept, leading me to my next point.
Who has freedom of speech IS clearly defined: insofar as the government is explicitly prohibited from abridging free speech.
Yes, and this freedom is protected by the freedom of the press. It is the press that reports on these violations to make them known to the populace at hand. If someones first amendment rights have been violated, and it is not reported, there is no leverage the plebs can use as influence in the court. Sure, you can still hire a lawyer and file a case, but an entity that has the power to truly quash your first amendment rights probably has the resources to drag the case out, and win with deeper pockets. If this same entity does not have to worry about its public image, due to no reporting, I am willing to venture they won't care.
This could also be used to attack those who do exercise their free speech. Let's say a person begins to speak out against entity X, where X is very influencial and deep pocketed. This person (citizen A) begins to reveal information that is factual about entity X's behavior. Reporter B, who is a licensed reporter, doesn't like what citizen A is saying. In an attempt to discredit him, reporter B begins making up horrible things that have occured in citizen A's past that can only be corroborated by "his source", which does not exist. If Reporter B is licensed, he is protected from having to reveal his source, which works out just fine because the source doesn't exist. Reporter B can now do this with impunity because he does not need to worry about jailtime. There is no punishment other than the possibility of being fired, which won't happen. If you think reporters don't make up stuff, look up Stephen Glass. Citizen A's following loss of credibility has now subverted his freedom of speech. Yes Citizen A was still able to talk, but now no one will listen. I do understand that the freedom of speech is not the right to an audience, but if it can be so easily undermined - it is a useless freedom. A freedom that is only given so the masses can believe they are free.
Once again I will state that this scenario has one foot firmly entrenched in tinfoil hat land. I will also agree that technically your point is correct, freedom of speech is not legally being affected here. My argument is it's social and political value can be seriously devalued and nullified by the possible misuse of this legislation.
If we agree on anything, it's that journalists being able to have anonymous sources helps society. But where we differ appears to be that you consider that a right that is granted by the first amendment, and I think it is no such right, but should be a privilege as granted by some criteria established by law.
I actually think we may agree on more than that, the one thing I do not agree with is defining who is and who isn't allowed to protect their sources. By creating a definition that is maintained by government we would be laying the groundwork for the government controlling the news. Is this directly preventing free speech, no it isn't in the legal sense, but I firmly believe that it is crippling to the social aspects of free speech that are supported by a free press, not a regulated press.
Exactly! All or None, that's what I'm saying.
And I was overly broad in my statement that the government can subpoena whatever information it wants. The courts and congress are limited by various law about what it can subpoena for, and of course someone can contest a subpoena. I am however, bothered by the potential for mischief in the case where anyone can keep sources from the government, though we both agree this is doable. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because at this point it goes into value judgements. There's no accounting for taste in this area.
This is a case study of the intersection between Common Law and Statutory law. The notion of a "Journalistic Shield" has existed for some time. To the mind of the general public and many lawmakers, police officers, even special prosecutors 'journalists' serve a special function and are thus entitled to protection under the law. In the past this principle has been followed even at the Federal Level. Daniel Ellsberg the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers was punished, indeed someone nearly beat him to death on the steps of the Supreme Court building, but he was never convicted of treason nor was publication stopped. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, bowed to the common law notion that the information in the papers should have been available and that Ellsberg performed a public service by sharing it.
/.'rs hearts is Fair Use). The concept of fair use has not been enshrined directly in any legal document (save obliquely in the Constitution). It has, however been defined over a number of years by caselaw. When asked about it people (even lawyers) describe it in terms of the open-textured concepts such as "educational purpose", or "personal use". In the past the coursts have happily ruled that playing a video for a class is an "educational use" but using an unlicenced copy of Photoshop to teach yourself is not. Similarly loaning a backup CD to your spouse is, to my knowledge, different than loaning it to a random stranger.
All of law is about principles and definitions. We do not wish to be murdered, and we think such acts are wrong so we enact a law saying that "(Murder -> Guilty) & (Guitly -> Punished)". The catch is that we then get to define "Murder". Murder itself is what is known as an open textured concept. Loosly speaking anytime I kill anyone it is murder. But! there are exemptions for cases where it was war, I was executing the person at the behest of the state, etc. For normative reasons the same act may or may not be 'murder'.
The fundamental challenge in law is in processing these concepts and dealing with them. Loosly speaking there are two approaches to this: Common Law and Statutory Law. The two are not incompatable, indeed most legal systems use both in different domains.
Common Law is that which is defined by general practice (public perceptions, the courts, and so on). A primary example of this (near to most
Statutory Law is that which is encoded by rulemaking bodies (Parliments, Congresses, etc.) The classic American example of this is the Tax Code which spells out in exacting detail what each and every thing is. A classic British example is the Nationality Act which defines who is, and is not a British Subject vis-a-vuis colonies, mixed parentege, etc. In statutory law it is necessary to spell things out explicitly as is being done here. A nice article at Lawmeme describes this as programming in the language Legal.
The point in which these two intersect is the definitions. In this case the goal is to define a 'journalist' or those who deserve the protection. What the authors are trying to do is to encode a common-law practice (that has yet to be set to paper) in a formal statutory way. The practical upshot of this is that they get to (if they want) to formalize the concept of a journalist. At present they seem to be tending towards the "someone who practices journalism" route, which is good. If they don't wish to overly specitfy things they could just punt (as they did with thje DMCA, and much biotech law) and write deliberately vague laws that are then up to the courts to decide.
The latter is not (in my opinion) entirely bad. In the case of the DMCA it has been bad but then the law was bad from the get-go. In the case of Biotech it is a cop-out by a congress too afraid of losing their jobs. In this case it might be good. When things are left up to
The point of the random killing segment is to make people afraid to go out, so that they stay at home and watch TV. When they do have to go out, they're more likely to want to do so in one of the armor-plated SUVs that are advertised in nearly every commercial break.