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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I don't need no estinkin'
Jeepmeister