Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law
Associated Press ^ | Mar 21, 2014 1:42 PM EDT | Donna Cassata

Posted on 03/21/2014 11:23:04 AM PDT by Olog-hai

A supporter of a bill to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal confidential sources said Friday the measure has the backing of the Obama administration and the support of enough senators to move ahead this year.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, spoke optimistically about prospects for the measure, identifying five Republicans who would join with Democrats and independents on a bill that he said would address a constitutional oversight.

While the first amendment protects freedom of the press, “there is no first amendment right for gathering information,” Schumer said at The New York Times’ Sources and Secrets Conference on the press, government and national security. …

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: New York
KEYWORDS: chuckschumer; demagogicparty; gopestablishment; liberalagenda; liberalmedia; mediashield; memebuilding; newyork; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; rinos; senate; statemedia; upchuckschumer

1 posted on 03/21/2014 11:23:04 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
the measure has the backing of the Obama administration and the support of enough senators to move ahead this year. You mean the same regime that routinely closes off information from reporters, spies on them and bars them from publicly funded overseas trips? THAT regime?
2 posted on 03/21/2014 11:24:43 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

So would this law extend to wiretapping private citizens phones, bugging their vehicles, computers and homes? How far protecting them until it intrudes on Joe Citizen?


3 posted on 03/21/2014 11:25:11 AM PDT by BipolarBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Most MSM sources work inside the White House and are named Mohammed.

I can understand why they need to be ‘shielded.’

In the middle east this is called Taqqiya.


4 posted on 03/21/2014 11:26:07 AM PDT by LyinLibs (If victims of islam were more "islamophobic," maybe they'd still be alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

There will be exemptions for Obama and crew. Those kinds of information gathering needs discouragement because they are already the most transparent administration in history. /s


5 posted on 03/21/2014 11:26:48 AM PDT by BipolarBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
You can be absolutely positive that this bill does the exact opposite of what Schmucker says it does.
6 posted on 03/21/2014 11:31:13 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
I knew this didn't make any sense from the brief snippet I read here. How could Obama and Schumer be for something that I would, in theory, agree with? My whole world was turned completely upside down for a tenth of a second.

Then I clicked on the link and read this section.

The bill's protections would apply to a "covered journalist," defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist" who would be granted the privileges of the law...

While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or other social media websites by non-journalists.

It codifies protection for the mainstream media journalists (95% of whom are de facto agents of the Democratic Party) and specifically excludes online outlets who are not necessarily willing mouthpieces for the state.

7 posted on 03/21/2014 11:31:30 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Yup, just like Obamacare ought to be called the Unaffordable Care Act


8 posted on 03/21/2014 11:32:12 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I really hate the assumption that absent legislation to the contrary, the fedguv has power and jurisdiction over everything.


9 posted on 03/21/2014 11:32:52 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead

Yuppers, established media.

How many false flags can this rotten government crank out.


10 posted on 03/21/2014 11:33:42 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: andyk

And yet without a greater Power being revered, that’s who is going to get the kudos.


11 posted on 03/21/2014 11:34:16 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dead
That's what I thought.

The First Amendment does not apply only to "journalists."

The First Amendment does not give "journalists" the right to free speech, it gives The People the right to a free press.

Anyone can call themselves a "press" by publishing a pamplet of ideas and nailing it to the tree in the town square.

This law would be unconstitutional by trying to have the government define who can be the "free press" and who cannot.

-PJ

12 posted on 03/21/2014 11:43:55 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The approach is from the wrong direction, because it creates the appearance that right are dispensed, or not, from the government. It is doubly damned, because it effectively means that journalists have rights that ordinary citizens do not, and the definition of journalist is also to be dispensed by the government.

Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the “Pentagon Papers”, should have spent the next 20 years or so in a federal penitentiary. NOT because of the content of the papers, but because he broke the law in releasing classified information. He should have suffered the same consequences as if he sold them to a foreign government.

Likewise, journalist who published them, knowing full well they were classified documents, should have no free speech protections.


13 posted on 03/21/2014 11:44:04 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
My gut says this "law" will be used to protect "sources close to the issue say......, or anonymous senior officials tell us....

This could also effectively shut down unauthorized commentary on blogs and internet news sites by "unofficial reporters".


14 posted on 03/21/2014 11:45:17 AM PDT by John 3_19-21 (The rats will always chew on each other just before abandoning ship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
As usual with MarxoFascists - the name of the legislation is the exact OPPOSITE of it's actual intent. "Media Shield Law" is the mechanism for the government to decide who is allowed to exercise and who is not allowed to exercise First Amendment Rights.

The FACT being abolished with this 'bill' - is that our First Amendment Protections are no longer a right - but rather a government-granted privilege.

This bears repeating:

The bill's protections would apply to a "covered journalist," defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist" who would be granted the privileges of the law…

Again, the First Amendment is now going to be redefined into a privilege to be granted by a judge or bureaucrat.

While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or other social media websites by non-journalists.

So you and I no longer have First Amendment right of free speech, press or religious exercise. This 'Media Shield Law' eradicates the last enumerated right in the First Amendment and relegates it to a privilege.

15 posted on 03/21/2014 11:47:44 AM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: andyk
I really hate the assumption that absent legislation to the contrary, the fedguv has power and jurisdiction over everything.

The federal government has the express power to set up courts. (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, cl. 9; Article III, section 1.) Those courts have the power to subpoena witnesses (explicitly, as to criminal cases, in the 6th Amendment; implicitly in civil cases, in Article III). This statute limits the power of federal courts to subpoena journalists. I do not believe it says anything about state courts.

16 posted on 03/21/2014 11:50:20 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Democrats are trying to shut down internet citizen journalists...

Republicans who go along with this are idiots.


17 posted on 03/21/2014 11:51:42 AM PDT by GOPJ (NASA: N othing A bout S pace A nymore - - FreperClearCase_guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: INVAR
As usual with MarxoFascists - the name of the legislation is the exact OPPOSITE of it's actual intent. "Media Shield Law" is the mechanism for the government to decide who is allowed to exercise and who is not allowed to exercise First Amendment Rights.

SCOTUS has held repeatedly that there is no First Amendment right of a journalist to decline to respond to a subpoena. This bill is creating a new right.

18 posted on 03/21/2014 11:52:06 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dead

“I knew this didn’t make any sense from the brief snippet I read here. How could Obama and Schumer be for something that I would, in theory, agree with?”

I had the same reaction, especially since the headline made it sound like he had trouble getting the votes on something that shouldn’t even require a law.

I figured that it had to be anti blogger law... and so it is.

I’m sure the establishment RINOs will be more than glad to vote for this.


19 posted on 03/21/2014 11:53:09 AM PDT by aquila48 (tota)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
It does the opposite. It expands the power of the government to retaliate against anyone not declared to be a "covered journalist."

Today, anyone can claim to be a journalist, take compromising videos, and put them on the internet.

Do you want to know who the real intended audience is for this bill? Think: James O'Keefe.

With this bill, the government could shut down O'Keefe from producing his Acorn-expose videos because they would label him a "blogger," and not a "covered journalist." They will hound him with subpoenas and contempt of court citations for exposing liberals and Democrats with his videos.

Without this bill, O'Keefe would have the same protections as a CBS 60 Minutes investigative journalist.

-PJ

20 posted on 03/21/2014 11:57:04 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

“The bill’s protections would apply to a “covered journalist,” defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information.”

This is the beginning of an all-out assault on alternative media. I have no doubt that if this passes it will ultimately be used to close down FreeRepublic.com along with just about any source of information other than the NY Times and MSNBC.

Any Republican who would support such a thing is a disgrace to the party (and that is really saying something these days!)


21 posted on 03/21/2014 12:20:26 PM PDT by Junk Silver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Junk Silver

So as of the date of the signing of this bill into law all the Alphabet Soup Agencies including the N.S.A. would hence forth become “covered Journalists”...


22 posted on 03/21/2014 12:43:33 PM PDT by VRWCarea51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Political Junkie Too:" This law would be unconstitutional by trying to have the government define who can be the "free press" and who cannot.

EXACTLY TRUE !!
It will legitimze the current press chronies
and make blogs Criminally Prosecutable
and RESTRICT free speech by edict and fiat .

Or in other words , do the opposite of what it proports to be by mis-naming the legislation.
But what else would you expect from 'Chuckie', the shtf ??

23 posted on 03/21/2014 12:51:33 PM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Ok, Define “media”. Will the shield protect anyone who publishes slander and attributes it to an unnamed third party? The Republicans lack the nerve to challenge these folks anyway. This is one hell of a can of worms.


24 posted on 03/21/2014 1:50:38 PM PDT by Steamburg (Other people's money is the only language a politician respects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The 1st Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, doesn’t give anybody a damn thing. It merely guarantees that the government will protect our God-given rights. And they’re doing a piss-poor job of it.


25 posted on 03/21/2014 2:30:16 PM PDT by beelzepug (if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
This is a partisan strategy -- Upchuck knows his Demagogic Party is going to lose both houses and the Presidency, and probably lose ground at least in state elections, and he and his fellow criminals plan to leak committee information 24/7 in ways that undermine legislation they oppose. Thanks Olog-hai.
While the first amendment protects freedom of the press, “there is no first amendment right for gathering information,” Schumer said at The New York Times’ Sources and Secrets Conference on the press, government and national security.

26 posted on 03/21/2014 3:39:49 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Obama asks Supreme Court for new standard that could limit free speech
Washington Times | Dec 4, 2013 | by Ernest Istook
Posted on 12/5/2013 11:37:00 AM by Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3098537/posts


27 posted on 03/21/2014 4:48:51 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LyinLibs

They’er not trying to ‘shield’ anything. This is a step in attempting to stop ‘citizen journalists’ ....


28 posted on 03/22/2014 7:39:40 AM PDT by GOPJ (NASA: N othing A bout S pace A nymore - - FreperClearCase_guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; abb; Liz; sickoflibs; SunkenCiv
The bill also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as "newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast ... or motion picture for public showing."

While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or other social media websites by non-journalists.

If the law can define 'journalists' then sites like this - maybe even Drudge - won't be able to operate. Newspapers have worked to define 'first amendment' rights that we've all be able to use. If that's taken away it would be the equivalent of the second amendment being defined as only applicable to the military or State militia.

This is a big police state move...

29 posted on 03/22/2014 2:12:36 PM PDT by GOPJ (NASA: N othing A bout S pace A nymore - - FreperClearCase_guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Well said.

The 2nd Amendment comes right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.


30 posted on 03/22/2014 3:42:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

bump to the top


31 posted on 03/22/2014 7:59:54 PM PDT by GOPJ (NASA: N othing A bout S pace A nymore - - FreperClearCase_guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson