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'?"

Comments

Why Define?

[Allen Zadr]

As an answer (I know, I shouldn't try)...
Lets start with WikiPedia:

"A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people."

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.

Re:Why Define?

[RobotRunAmok]

Lets start with WikiPedia:

Here's a tip: Anyone who is skeptical regarding whether a "blogger" is a journalist is NOT going to be swayed by a Wikipedia cite.

More than likely, it'll have just the opposite effect...

Re:Why Define?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Hmmm- a lot of small town "journalists" who work for small newspapers work only part time, a few hours a week. They have other full time jobs. I believe that the way to explain the shield law, is that it will protect corporate journalists. Even many small free alternative papers are owned by big corporations now....
If you are an independent journalist, i.e. blogger, you have no rights. If you want rights, go work for a big company like GE (NBC) etc.... This scares the shit out of me- abridging our freedom of speech scares the shit out of me, sorry for the language.

Does it really matter?

[lordkuri]

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?

Re:Does it really matter?

[jeepmeister]

As a former journalist (defined by my 5 years of employment as a writer/photograhper at a daily newspaper in the Los Angeles metropolitan area with a circulation of over 100K) I can tell you that the shield law does matter. I'm far less concerned over bloggers not receiving equal protection under the shield law than I am that the effectiveness of the shield law may be diluted by the controversy over bloggers credentials as journalists. I'll feel that way until some as yet to be defined in my mind number of bloggers are willing to go to jail for the right to keep sources confidential. Sorry if this sounds hostile, but to a journalist the shield law is a significant issue.

Re:Does it really matter?

[StikyPad]

What about a site like the Drudge Report, which has a readership in the millions? What's the litmus test for being a reporter? Training? Readership? Employment? Whether or not one's been to jail? Or sort of a four-cheese blend?

I'll feel that way until some as-yet to be defined in my mind number of bloggers are willing to go to jail for the right to keep sources confidential.

I guess I feel minorities should ride on the back of the bus until some as yet to be defined number of minorities are willing to go to jail for the right to get equal treatment. Or, we could just afford people the rights they're already guaranteed without requiring them to prove their merit in order to receive protection under the law.

Put another way, the framers put Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment, along with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Peacable assembly. These rights are granted to individuals, not government-approved entities. There is no test for the legitimacy of a religion in order to receive the same Constitutional protections for Jedism as Judaism. To create a test for whether a religion receives constitutional protection would be the same as requiring state approval for a religion, and would be in direct conflict with "Congress shall make no law..."

Now I'll be the first to admit that I think bloggers are a bunch of self-important hipsters who really don't have much of a contribution to make to the field of journalism on the whole, but I would also describe most reporters the same way.

Definition of journalist

[thc69]

Hmm..Journalist....

Doesn't it have something to do with fail-safe filesystems?

Amendment XIV

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Amendment XIV

[benjamindees]

You make it sound like they can't make laws which restrict some people

They can't. That's the whole point of equal protection. You can outlaw acts, but not people.

Of course, it's not surprising that you think otherwise, since this is yet another of the many protections against tyranny that have been completely gutted and ignored in the US.

Can a child molester live near a school?

Child molestors have committed crimes. If their punishment for said crime restricts where they can live, then such restriction is acceptable.

Can a blind person drive a car?

Blind people, however, are entitled to equal protection. Being blind is not a crime. This means you can't make a law that discriminates against them. You can, perhaps, create a realistic, non-discriminatory test that tests for the ability to drive. (By non-discriminatory I mean the test can't just consist of "Are you blind?", but must actually test driving ability) Perhaps some blind people would pass it. Perhaps, with assistive devices, blind people can be great drivers. Of course, if you just prohibit blind people from driving instead, under your own ignorant assumptions, then we'll never know, and you would have violated their right to equal protection.

Can a blogger who is not a member of the press and has never been to a school for journalism call himself a journalist?

I can call myself a pink elephant if I'd like. That happens to be protected speech. Ironically, that is protected by exactly the same Constitutional Amendment that protects "the press". It's here. Notice how journalists aren't mentioned anywhere, only speech and press?

William Randolph Hearst never went to school for journalism and he sure as hell was a journalist. You act like "the press" is some sort of club or something. The goddamn Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect clubs. It was written to protect rights. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of the press. The press is not a group of people but a method of printing, of communicating. Before computers, a common method of communication was via a printing press. I am pressing the keys on my keyboard right now, trying to get this concept through to you.

My pressing on keys is protected by the First Amendment regardless of whether I'm a goddamn journalist.

Debated this in high school

[LeonGeeste]

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.

This attempt to control the media is unacceptable

[revscat]

According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the "covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes "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." The legislation also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such entity."

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.

Re:Typical elected official

[lordkuri]

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.

Why should journalists be any different?

[the_real_bto]

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.

easy algorythm for this

[wardk]

this is easy. which bloggers are journalists?

if ( blogger_supports_current_powerbase ) {
    party_on();
} else {
    gitmo_baby();
}

Re:Good. They shouldn't be.

[Hrolf]

Mr. Rather? Is that you? How's the effort going to break that story about the fake memos?

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.

Simple answer

[killkillkill]

'Journalist' are all those who expresss an opinion that I agree with

Journalists aren't journalists either....

[isotope23]

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...

Are "journalists" mentioned in the Constitution?

[stankulp]

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.

So what's new here?

[jc42]

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.

Re:So what's new here?

[SpaceLifeForm]

You really shouldn't look at it that way. You do have the freedom to publish, it's just that now you have additional, affordable tools (computers and the Internet). The proposed bill is just an attempt to take away your rights because the darkside is scared of the power of the masses to take away their power.

Re:Typical elected official

[Irish_Samurai]

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.