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.
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.
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.
this is easy. which bloggers are journalists?
if ( blogger_supports_current_powerbase ) {
party_on();
} else {
gitmo_baby();
}
Or maybe you're thinking of the famous Walter Duranty and his stories about how Stalin's famines weren't really happening. Accountability didn't mean he couldn't keep his Pulitzer.
Or maybe you're thinking of the recent coverage about Hurricane Katrina where the cable and network news shows went from saying, "The media is back, baby!" to saying "Most of what we told you was wrong," without even a pause for breath.
I'm not real anxious to create any protected class of "journalists" who aren't subject to campaign speech restrictions that affect everyone else. I'd rather we all just had freedom of the press.
'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!
The First Amendment only applies to "journalists?"
How convenient.
Now SeeBS, NBC, ABC and CNN can go back to manufacturing memos to use against enemy politicians and broadcasting sensational lies when natural disasters occur.
Thank God we can all get back to normal.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
There's long been a saying that freedom of the press applies only to those with the money to own and operate a press.
One interesting about the Internet is that you no longer have to be rich to "publish". Anyone can now act as a journalist without first having the price of entry (or being hired by someone with the price of entry) to the tradition printed press or radio or television. Those kept out the riff-raff by requiring printing or broadcast equipment that most of us couldn't afford.
This bill is really just an attempt to maintain this tradition of press freedom belonging only to the wealthy and to corporations.
So it's not really abridging any freedoms that most of us ever had. It's merely reacting to the internet giving this freedom to the masses, which was never the case in the past.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
That's not what should make your head spin.
Let's say they do nail down a definition for Journalist that everyone can kinda agree on. And when I say that, I say it very skeptically because no one is going to agree on that. So a trite and vague definition will be used.
After this happens, you have to prove that you are allowed this "sheild" by registering as a journalist or obtaining a license. This WILL happen if for no other reason than to be able to collect revenue off of the process.
Now the politicians have a way to define who can and cannot inform the people on their behavior without being subject to jail time. I understand this is the underlying point of the discussion, but the central focus is being put on bloggers to screen the real problem.
Take it one step further into tinfoil hat land, and the government will be able to use this to not only classify who can and cannot use free speech freely, but who is allowed to report on whether or not that speech was really necessary. The implications get pretty nasty after that.
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.
This is nothing more nor less than the Blogger Control Act of 2005. It is the last dying gasp of the 'mainstream media' to remain relevent in the face of the change we all see coming. Ten years ago the idea of government regulation of journalists would have received universal condemnation, but fear is forcing the press to do something very stupid.
Once the government gets into the business of handing out official press badges it will serve to draw a nice sharp line between the MSM and the bloggers, with one group getting to continue as things are now while the bloggers get pretty much driven out of the US IP space. Don't believe me, think I'm daft? McCain Fiengold will see to it. Once bloggers are offically outside of the 1st Amendment's protection, that it only applies to Press Guild members, political topics will be pretty much off limits. Yes this will include Slashdot within a month or so of an election.
And for awhile the Press will be happy with this new law they are buying..... but only for awhile. Then they will learn the true power of the Dark Side of Government.
Democrat delenda est
The reasonable person standard is a common use in courts. The whole reason you use "reasonable" person is so that then courts (and jury's) can make decisions about specific cases.
You dont actually WANT to define reasonable, because it can change over time. The reasonable person standard, however, makes it clear that if there is a problem, the courts and peers will decide.
This is common in contract, liability, even criminal law. WHy not use it here?
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.