Comments on: Bills propose reporter's shield for bloggers

One sponsor says intent is to include anyone who "regularly" engages in newsgathering, but "not everyone in our society."

[Pete Bardo]

Journalists aren't special!

Tatum said, "It would behoove a lot of people to understand some very basic things about accuracy and fairness in newsgathering."

Maybe should should tell her members this too! Statements do not automatically become the truth just because it is written by one of her members.

In today's democracy, it is in all of our best interests for all of us to keep both eyes open and report what they have seen. Fear of punishment for not revealing sources will translate to fear of publishing.

The bill is a lot of fancy words that say "We can force anyone to do our bidding any time we want."

Anyone who believes in this country's free press needs to take another look.

[brupub]

Shield for Bloggers

I am very pro Journalism but I have seen an enormous proliferation of HATE blogs that attack and demean blogging authors personally. With blogging comes an aura of protection in invisibility and any legislation MUST contain strong wording on penalties and prosecution for HATE blogs.

[suyts]

So who defines

hate speech? How would it be defined? So far, enforcement of hate-speech "crimes", worldwide has been woefully one-sided. I believe freedom of speech is one of the key tenets of a free society. I, further, don't believe that someone has a right not to have thier feelings hurt. I do believe that truth in journalism, escpecially on the net, is a huge problem. A shield law for bloggers will only serve to increase bloggers ability to mislead.

[Gayle Edwards]

On the surface...

...this particular-move sounds good. But, I am worried about what happens once we come to accept, any notion, that the ANY particular group (including the "government", through its legislative-abilities) should be allowed to designate exactly -who- is (or, on the flip-side, who is NOT...) a "journalist". Once you build a wall, with such a controlling-gate... It doesnt really matter that, the first -policy- was to admit almost everyone. The simple fact is that the mechanism for controlling any freedom of information-dissemination, IS in place.

Furthermore, "journalism" is a part of "Free Speech"... Not, the other way around. Our "Founding Fathers" considered ANYONE who intentionally provided information to the "public" (through any "mass" distribution channel), to, effectively, be a "Journalist". And, that is how the Supreme Court has usually ruled in such matters.

Frankly, the "Internet" has become the most powerful medium of communication, yet created... even more individually-empowering than "writing", or the "printing press", themselves (which, by the way, were also considered to be dangerously-disruptive to societies when they were introduced). But, trying to artificially-differentiate it [journalism] from the, broader, basic rights of "Free Speech" (even through specially -protecting- a specific subset, of citizens) ...is the antithesis of the very freedom that, as Americans, we should be trying to nurture and protect.

You do not have a right to "lie" (which, by the way, has never been protected, for anyone). But, neither, does anyone have a "right" to not be offended by someone elses opinions, or unpleasant facts (if they are believed to be accurate).

Anyone who presents such opinions, or information, to the "public" MUST be given the same basic protections of "Free Speech", and "journalistic license", or those "rights" are simply meaningless.

Anyway, thats MY "opinion" on the matter.

[suyts]

Wow!!

That was a wonderful contribution to the discussion. I believe you nailed the intent of our founding fathers. While the right to lie has never been protected (per se), it has never been properly addressed either. I see lies every day in all forms of media. The problem is one can't prove whether they are intentional lies or lies of ingnorance. I believe the law makes a distinction. I also believe that we should be very wary of any government intrusion in this medium. A shield law would only serve to protect those lawless few that don't wish to adhere to our principles and laws.