How politicians weakened a legal shield for bloggers
The House of Representatives' vote on Tuesday for a journalist shield bill is a timely example of how legislation can be watered down surprisingly quickly.
Originally the proposed shield law gave a broad immunization to journalists, including bloggers who acted as journalists. But eventually it morphed into a far less protective form.
Here's the progression:
#1 Original version:
The term "covered person" means a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.
#2 Second version approved by a House committee:
The term "covered person" means a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.
#3 Third version as approved by the full House:
The term "covered person" means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.
The original version was reasonably protective, and the term "engaged in journalism" was reasonably well-defined. But by the time our esteemed elected representatives got finished with it, a serious blogger who breaks news (but doesn't have Google Ads on his site) would not benefit from the shield. It requires "substantial" income, even though not all good journalism is done for significant financial gain.
By the way, all versions of the shield legislation are pretty milquetoast when it comes to actually protecting journalists. They say that journalists can be ordered to the witness stand as long as a judge thinks their testimony may be "essential to the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against the prosecution," which is not that significant a hurdle in practice.
I know this firsthand. The U.S. Department of Justice served me with a subpoena to testify in a criminal case in Tacoma, Wash., and then demanded that the judge declare me a hostile witness when I refused to answer certain questions. Even the weakened, final version of the House bill is better than nothing, but I fear it'll prove to be a very thin and easily circumvented shield in practice.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
In the first instance I'm sure someone said "So anyone can claim to be a journalist and protect themselves from being compelled to testify?" Probably not a good idea as then everyone would be a journalist wouldn't they?
So the second one clarifies that you have to be covering stuff for at least some financial gain, and/or your livelihood. That narrows the definition down to people who can demonstrate that they actually *are* a journalist (used to be working for a news organization had you covered but we all know that doesn't work now).
Finally in the third version the question of 'engaged in journalism' wasn't clear to most readers of the bill and so they explicitly put into the bill what 'engaged in journalism' meant. This is the Congressional equivalent of replacing the pronoun 'they' or 'it' with the proper noun that had appeared earlier in the sentence.
Clearly one of the hazards of any bill is making it overly broad which, when it comes to journalists, often causes it to die a first amendment death.
So I throw the question back at you Declan, if you agree that you use the term 'weakened' in place of the more descriptive 'narrowed', who do you think was excluded in the presumably final version?
--Chuck
http://www.news.com/2010-1071_3-5601664.html
That's the definition I'd use. Anything else isn't protective enough, or in your words, would be overly narrow.
The more important issue is that the shield law (a) doesn't cover everyone it should and (b) is too weak to help the people it does cover very much.
Tasi
thelordslark.blogspot.com
Legit cyber-journalist, maybe they should have some shield, maybe. Crack smoking liars that know how to turn on a computer, no.
It would be nice/fantasy if we could decide to descern truth from opinion when writing and to jail those that purposfully slander/libel other people.
Ben Franklin and beyond, there is no way the government has
the right to determine who is and isnt' a journlaist. That is prior
restraint and it is not constitutional. I sure hope our "strict
constructionist" supreme court can do the right thing and strike
down such nonsense as trying to define the term journalist as
narrowly as possible.
A rich, healthy debate can only take place where the marektplace
of ideas is free to operation without stupid government offiials
disapproving the words of people they find distasteful.
As for prosecutors can go on fishing expiditions through
journalists' notes is ao anti-American I can't believe any
competent lawyers will think they can get away with it in the
long run.
"Once I couldn't spell journalist, now I are one!" :-P
- by sblservices January 21, 2009 1:07 AM PST
- Good , informative post...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(13 Comments)Regards,
<a href="http://www.saibposervices.com/"> SBL Bpo services</a>