Posted on 09/29/2013 8:08:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been working on a bill to shield reporters from heavy-handed federal officials who seek to use their power to uncover information about whistle-blowers and leakers. Given the Obama Department of Justice's recent adventures in surveilling reporters' phone logs, you might think that for her trouble, Feinstein would be the object of much praise and many hosannas from the ink-stained-wretch community. But no, you can file this one under: No good deed goes unpunished.
DiFi, you see, made the mistake of insisting that a proposed reporters' privilege law, the Free Flow of Information Act, apply only to journalists. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she distinguished between professional journalists and "a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $5 and starts a blog." Quoth Feinstein: "This bill is described as a reporter shield bill. I believe it should be applied to real reporters."
Big mistake, that "real reporters" line. Columns and blogs rained down the wrath of the overwrought. The far-left Truthout accused Feinstein of wanting "to strip independent journalists' rights." Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge tweeted "fascist."
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, complained the measure "leaves out citizen bloggers." Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, charged, "Any carve-out of particular media for protection and special treatment is, in effect, government licensing of legitimate media."
Nice try, but because the law is designed to protect journalists from federal snooping and because journalists aren't licensed or certified, Feinstein is right to maintain that a shield law should define who qualifies for protection as a journalist.
"To me, there's not really a need to define the world of journalism," David Greene, senior staff attorney of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, told me. A shield law, Greene argued, is designed not to "protect journalists" but to protect the dissemination of information.
But then a terrorist group can -- wink, wink -- report on and broadcast a violent attack for the purpose of intimidation and then claim the mantle of reportage.
Likewise, an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.
Does EFF think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a journalist? To that question, Greene responded, EFF has no opinion.
What really frosts me is how many journalists and journalism organizations rejected Feinstein's belief in "real reporters." It's a throwback to 2007, when the San Francisco Chronicle and other news organs called blogger Josh Wolf, then 24, "the longest-imprisoned journalist" in America.
Was Wolf imprisoned? Yes. Unjustly? You bet; he didn't commit a crime. But he wasn't a journalist.
He was a self-described artist, activist and anarchist who recorded a 2005 demonstration against the World Trade Organization, at which a protester broke the skull of San Francisco police officer Peter Shields. Wolf was not a real reporter; he had no confidential-source agreement. He was an activist and an amateur who later became a real journalist when he was hired by a newspaper and had to adhere to professional standards.
Back to the proposed shield law. The Society of Professional Journalists urged members to protest earlier Feinstein language that defined journalists as "salaried" staffers of news organizations or "independent contractors." I don't understand what SPJ leaders were thinking.
Organizations that represent professionals usually try to protect the craft, to set standards that enhance standing in the community, and also, not coincidentally, to help their practice thrive economically.
Journalists? Many have voiced their outrage that Feinstein dared suggest that they're more polished than a 17-year-old blogger.
SPJ now supports the shield law in part because it includes so-called improvements, such as dumping the compensation requirement. Yes, journalist groups actually pushed for Washington to pass laws that protect competitors who don't pay their people.
Do you think maybe real reporters have a real death wish?
“Do you think maybe real reporters have a real death wish?”
So you publish something that’s anti-government. They pull your license. Soon, all storied would have to be government sensor approved. (They’d call it the office of verification and authentication.)
Ok, I read it twice, I think I get it... Cake for me but not for thee!
As I see it anyone who is willing to put their name and good reputation out there either in Physical Ink or Electronic Ink no matter whether they are paid for doing so or not is to be afforded the protections of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
thanks for posting this Kaslin and please note that my criticism isn’t pointed at you.
Now, having read this piece, can anyone tell me which side of the issue is the author standing? Why would any responsible person (that dismisses the dhimmicrats) favor legislation that cheapens the 1st Amendment?
but according to Fineswine, al jizzmoglobin is a REAL news outfit... go figure
Oh, wait a minute. There are no licensing requirements mentioned in the First Amendment.
The fact that Debra is on the same side as Feinstein should have given her a warning.
“But then a terrorist group can — wink, wink — report on and broadcast a violent attack for the purpose of intimidation and then claim the mantle of reportage.
Likewise, an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.”
There are laws that can be put in place for her examples of abuses of the law. this is similar to the first Amendment and someone screaming “Fire” (or nowadays, “Gun”) in a crowded movie theater. That example is not enough to invalidate the First Amendment for everybody, does it? I therefore reject her examples. The critics are right that the Feinstein law gives the government too much power by allowing it to regulate who gets to call themselves a “journalist”.
I don't care who you are if you publish national security security information that puts our armed forces, civilians and nation in harms was then you go to jail.
The leaker can have the top bunk and you can shower together and brag about your treason.
Seriously, reporters have shown reckless abandonment of our security countless times in the past this law would codify the practice. What we are really talking about here is “shielding” them from all responsibility and consequences of their treason.
IOWs Fineswine and the author are OK with that as long as the NYTs does the leaking. Which it has. Repeatedly.
Unarguably, the sole purpose of Dify’s proposal is to protect the power elite and the best way for that is to cheapen the first amendment, as you put it. Similarly, the power elite, (Dify for one, would disarm the citizen in a heart beat) have for years been cheapening the second amendment by passing anti-gun laws that first constrains the people’s right and by design perverts it’s original intent. That is precisely what is taking place here with this “define the news reporter” bill. This administration and the three before it have not only cheapened the US constitution, they have perverted and ignored it. It is my sense regarding the first 10 amendments, all but the first two partially remain but under the obozo administration, are clearly in peril. Eventually the people will lose them just as the others have been lost to lawlessness by the entrenched corrupted ruling elite DC tyrants of whom too many still so foolishly place their trust to govern this country.
The only real reporters are sports writers who can’t be trusted either.
So, Debra J. Saunders believes there should be a “shield law” that applies only to Democrat propaganda specialists (”real reporters”)?
I don’t think so, Deb. Now beat it.
Righto. A journalist is someone who commits journalism.
And who decides the qualification of “real” reporter?
.
Debra J. Saunders is a real idiot.
The country is sounding more like an Ayn Rand novel every day.
You have got to be kidding. Saunders is delusional. Let's approach this at its most basic level: the founding principle of justice in the United States is one set of rules by which everyone lives. No special privileges, no Special Rules for Special People. No protected classes, rights for everyone. The further we depart from this principle the more fragmented and Balkanized the country becomes.
When journalists as a group function not as investigators, but as apologists, instigators, manipulators of public opinion, bag men for a corrupt and criminal government, then they are completely unworthy of any protection at all and become the very first to demand it. And that is precisely what is going on here.
...an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.
They do. And sometimes they should, especially when that classification is constructed around protecting crime and outrage within the government. Journalists used to do that. Now they call for the perpetrators' heads like any other obedient little class of administration toadies. No sale, Debra. If we all don't enjoy this protection, you don't.
The problem, of course, is the internet. There is entirely too much free exchange of information going on. Virtually anyone can share information, express an opinion or report on events and get their message out to millions of people. This has to be stopped. /s
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.