Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

Associated Press ^ | Mar 21, 2014 1:42 PM EDT | Donna Cassata

[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. …

[Junk Silver]

“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!)

[VRWCarea51]

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”...

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

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 ??

[Steamburg]

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.

[beelzepug]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

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

[GOPJ]

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

[GOPJ]

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...

[SunkenCiv]

Well said.

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

[GOPJ]

bump to the top