Non-'casual' bloggers win legal shield in House
Update 3:10 p.m. PDT: Despite veto threats from the Bush administration, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would shield journalists--and some bloggers--from being forced to reveal confidential sources in federal cases.
By a 398-21 vote, the politicians backed an amended version of the Free Flow of Information Act. Sponsored by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the proposal offers a "qualified" privilege to anyone engaged in journalism, which it defines as "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."
But beware, "casual" bloggers: The privilege isn't meant to apply to you, the bill's sponsors say.
So how do they define "casual"? The politicians unanimously agreed to adopt an amendment (click for PDF) that specifies the person engaged in journalism must do so "regularly" and derive "a substantial portion of the person's livelihood" or "substantial financial gain" from the practice. (It would presumably be up to a court to sort out what exactly constitutes "substantial" and "regularly.")
And in case there was any doubt, the amendment specifies that terrorists or members of terrorist organizations, as designated by federal law, don't qualify for any privileges afforded by the bill either.
And even for those who qualify, the privilege is not without numerous exceptions, as CNET Blog Network contributor Josh Wolf detailed earlier Tuesday. Many of the carveouts deal with issues related to national security or serious criminal investigations, while others seek to protect unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets or other sensitive personal information.
Before the vote, members from both parties spoke in favor of the bill, which is endorsed by a number of major media organizations.
"Freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment has been a cornerstone of our democracy, one that we cherish and promote around the world," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a brief speech before the vote. "The essential work of the press has been severely hampered by a lack of federal standard."
A handful of prominent republicans, including House Judiciary Committee ranking member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Pete King (R-N.Y.), repeatedly attacked the proposal, pointing to strong reservations voiced by the Bush administration.
The White House, Justice Department and intelligence community strongly oppose the bill because they argue it's broad enough to undermine their crime-fighting and antiterrorism efforts. The president's advisers have recommended he veto it, should it pass, Smith said.
"If the media shield bill passes, we'll be carving out a special exception to that rule for reporters, tabloids and bloggers," said Smith, who professed to having "sympathy" for the press after a two-year stint as a newspaper reporter when he was younger. "This is not what our founders intended when they created a free press. No one should be above the law, not even the press."
The idea of a reporter's privilege is hardly new, and 49 states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of reporter's privilege on their books. But King questioned why a federal rule is necessary, citing the Department of Justice's statement that it has only issued 19 subpoenas to reporters since 1991.
"Some of the people who hide behind the shield of journalism today routinely release classified national security info as if it were their duty," he said before the vote, later adding: "People should not be protected...just because they gave the information to a reporter or blogger, not someone else."
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who supports the bill, said the balance struck by the bill is appropriate. "If the exceptions were any broader," he said, "it would swallow up the rule itself."
On the Senate side, the Judiciary Committee has approved a similar--but not identical --version. All veto threats aside, for the bill to become law, the full Senate would have to approve a bill and reconcile any differences with the House.
So now, in order to protect my right of free speech and free press, I must derive a significant portion of my income from it?
We know the big guys lie to us and withhold information at the request of the gestapo, I mean government, in the name of whatever cause is the most scary at the time. For GW, it's his war on terrorism.
Increasingly, it's the little guys who dare tell the truth. And we're going to repay that courage with a threat of legal action?
For Rep. Lamar Smith: I could see requiring writers to reveal sources when it involves libel. But, it's the writer's choice here: either reveal your source to prove your statements are true or be found guilty of libel!
Journalism is defined adequately already, without the proposed ammendment. And I refuse to give up one drop of freedom for GW's "crime-fighting and antiterrorism efforts".
If we give up any of our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism, we have already lost the fight.
Whether one receives money for the report should NEVER be used as a litmus test.
However if a blogger does their homework they are press and deserve the protection of the press. If they don't, the traditional press doesn't deserve it either for all the reasons Bush has mentioned. I'm not in that camp.
Obviously we have carved out exceptions to this over the years (e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house), but given that "the press" at the time when these words were written largely consisted of people who did *not* derive their livelihood as reporters and that the security of the nation was as tenuous if not more so than it is today (a small, loosely organized federation vs. the superpower of the day), I'd say that restricting bloggers from enjoying the same protections as big media reporters is contrary to the intent of the first amendment.
If blogs were published on mimeographed paper as they were 20 years ago, this probably wouldn't even be debated, but all entrenched powers are threatened by the emergence of technologies they can't control. The press is merely an extension of the people's right to free speech. The medium in which that speech is conveyed doesn't make a difference, and neither does the occupation of the person saying it.
If we could require all legislation to identify the specific lines of the constitution that allow it (and do away with riders), we'd take a giant leap toward getting government back under control. And if Washington truly wants to restrict free speech, or hold highway money hostage, or mandate public education, it should get an amendment passed authorizing it to do so. Unfortunately, we live in a time where apathy allows ludicrous propositions like excluding private citizens from exercising Constitutional rights to be the norm instead of the exception.
Wow. I'm glad that after 231 years, the Federal Government has finally stepped in with a swiss cheese piece of legislation to ensure that the press will finally be unhampered.
If they'd just hurry up with unhampering the rest of the Bill of Rights, we could finally become the country that Stalin and Orwell always dreamed we could be.
Too bad there's not another ocean to cross.
The basic "Rights", and necessities, of a truly free-society (as laid-out within the U.S. Constitution) does NOT have a DAMNED thing to do with being part of commercial-endeavors. Nor, do any of the basic human-rights (spelled-out in the "Bill of Rights") depend, in any way, upon "proving" a commercial-connection, or dependence.
Frankly, there is no legitimate way that this can be construed to actually serving the best interests of "...The American People".
This entire sham... is nothing more than an obscene, back-handed, political-scheme, specifically designed, to rob American-citizens of their basic-rights (and access to vital-information), period.
In the 1700s, our "Founding Fathers" finally felt compelled (by abuse, after abuse) to use almost any force necessary (and, "...face any personal-sacrifice") "...to defend, and protect", those basic human-rights, "...against ALL enemies, foreign or domestic". And, I believe that most Americans still feel that way. Frankly, thats called being a PATRIOTIC -Citizen- of the United States...
...UNLIKE our, current (clearly WHOLLY-CORRUPT, backdoor-dealing, demand that everybody live in an artificial information-vacuum), "Government-officials".
Oh well... I suspect that future-history will record that things got a lot worse, before they finally got any better. More is the pity...
(Ancient Chinese Curse): "May you live in interesting times..."
- Strike against freedom, not a real protection
-
by lizwolfspada
October 17, 2007 6:19 AM PDT
- Where in the constitution does it give the government the ability to
-
Reply to this comment
-
(7 Comments)define who is press and who is not? That in itself is a blow against
the Constitution. Any bill that does not protect the blogger, like my
son, Josh Wolf who spend seven months in jail for his reporting,
does not protect the writers or the readers of what is still
considered "new" media, but once TV was new media, once the
radio was new. Reporting the news with the intent to inform should
be all that is needed for shield protections.