- Related Stories
-
Bills propose reporter's shield for bloggers
May 4, 2007 -
Freed blogger calls release a victory
April 3, 2007 -
A blogger's battle from behind bars
August 11, 2006 -
Apple thwarted in bid to unmask leaker
May 26, 2006 -
Senators: Bloggers may not be true journalists
October 19, 2005 -
Panel explores giving reporters' shield to bloggers
July 20, 2005 - Related Blogs
-
Senator: Bloggers will "probably not" be deemed journalists
October 10, 2005
WASHINGTON--The Bush administration on Thursday blasted a congressional proposal that would shield a broad swath of news gatherers, including some bloggers, from revealing their confidential sources.
The latest draft of the Free Flow of Information Act would pose a grave threat to national security and federal criminal investigations by protecting far too large a segment of the population, a U.S. Department of Justice official told Congress.
"The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web," Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing here. She also argued it would protect "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."
Justice Department opposition has bedeviled Congress throughout its numerous attempts in recent years to enact federal shield laws. Supporters say such legislation is needed in light of high-profile cases involving New York Times reporter Judith Miller and what free-press advocacy groups characterize as a sharp rise in subpoenas to reporters in recent years.
Laws recognizing some form of "reporter's privilege" already exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia--but, crucially, do not shield journalists from federal prosecutors. The Bush Administration claims there's no evidence that source-related subpoenas to reporters are on the rise and argues that it already has robust internal guidelines, including a requirement that the attorney general personally approve such subpoenas and provide an appropriate balance between press freedom and investigative needs.
This year's Free Flow of Information Act, which has been introduced in both the House and Senate, proposes a protection for a broader swath of people than earlier versions. It covers anyone engaged in journalism, which is defined 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."
Even those covered individuals could be forced to give up their sources under certain circumstances, including when it's clear that crimes have been committed, when "imminent and actual harm" to national security could occur, or when trade secrets, nonpublic personal information or health records are compromised in violation of existing laws.
The hearing, which lasted about three hours, highlighted again the tensions that have arisen as the traditional mainstream media continues to overlap and collide with Internet-based upstarts.
On several occasions, politicians from both parties questioned whether the bill should be so expansive as to include bloggers. Some bristled at the notion that the ease of publishing online could provide cover for those who want to leak sensitive information and get away with it.
"I'd say anyone who didn't want to face legal action would immediately try to put up a blog and try to get journalistic protection," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), adding that he hoped to work with his colleagues to refine that definition.
But even one of the bill's opponents, George Washington University Law School professor Randall Eliason, said, "anything narrower is going to run into severe First Amendment problems."
William Safire, a longtime New York Times columnist and former Nixon administration speech writer, praised the bill's current definition because he said it focuses on the actions characteristic of journalists, not their affiliations.
"Whether you're a blogger or whether you're The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you're a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not," he said. (The New York Times, the National Association of Broadcasters and other journalism groups have endorsed the latest bill, according to its sponsors.)
At Thursday's hearing, the bill's chief sponsors, Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), never directly addressed the issue of the journalist definition they crafted. Boucher told CNET News.com in an interview earlier this year that they intended to include bloggers "who are regularly involved in newsgathering and reporting." Any refinement of that definition would be left up to the courts.
Instead, the bill's sponsors continued to tout the necessity of passing their measure as soon as possible. The measure, Pence said, "is not about protecting reporters, it's about protecting the public's right to know."
Some Republicans said they opposed the bill more broadly because they believed it would give undue protection to anyone who publishes false or irresponsible information. Former Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) cited a New York Times story last year about a government computer system to track money laundering by terrorists as an example of a situation in which a news outlet harmed American national security interests.
"I don't see very much responsibility there," he said. "It seems to me the burden of proof in showing a press shield will be used responsibly should be on the news media."
See more CNET content tagged:
Brad Sherman, subpoena, national security, blogger, Bush Administration
"Give us what we want or the terrorists will get you".
And it's complete BS every time they use it.
They've walked all over the Constitution, pretty much committed treason on a number of occasions, broken innumerable laws - and every time they get called on it, it's because "the terrorists will win" if they don't, or "the terrorists will get ya" if they can't.
They've even used Star Trek 'red alerts' to win elections.
Oh don't get me wrong, the Democrats are as spineless as the Republicans are liars. They refuse to challenge any of these lies, refuse to put up any sort of fight in case some mean right winger commentator calls them soft of terror.
Get over it - if this Congress wimps out on this, just as they did on funding the Iraq debacle, every one of them deserves to lose their seat in the next congressional election.
There is a reason why Congress only has a 23% approval rating, in fact there are two. The first is that people quite rightly believe Congress is still open for business, willing to sell itself to the highest bidder - and the other is that people quite rightly believe they are spineless to challenge the President.
If they back down on this bill they will have proven themselves to be weak once again.
We have the 1st amendment to the constitution for a reason, now the President wants to walk all over it some more right? To me that is wrong!
Here is the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This can be found at this website: http://home.earthlink.net/~people-of-courage/lawsandrights/id3.html
Isn't our President smart enough to get this or what? He is going out of the office this term because he has to, luckily they only get two terms. The legacy he leaves can only be one of him not making any attempt to undo the damage he has already done or that he made some honest attempt to limit the damage he has already caused.
I did not vote for him, if it were not for Republicans like him I might consider becoming one myself? So he can either try to undo some of the damage he has done or he can enforce a legacy of not only willingly lying to the American people in a public way on National TV and getting us into a religious war, getting more and more people addicted to mind altering addictive psychoactive drugs and destroying their bodies at government demand, and not doing a thing to help the economy of our country, or he can try to turn it around by doing some real things to help the poor, stop pushing the mind altering drugs, stop the fear mongering and coercion and force tactics, and think about doing soemthing to change his own mind and turn it around.
So this is the way that I see it and I am a blogger, website owner, writer, alternative media, and I am asking him not to take away my right to write as freely as I need to in order to stop the bull and make a real difference in our world.
I realize that some people may be afraid of the people like me that tell the truth with fairness, balance, timeliness, and integrity, but we are not terrorist just writers getting the truth out. That is the only real reason I could see for anyone to want to limit this constitutional freedom.
Vote for Ron Paul for President, he is the best choice I know of at this time. Perhaps I will change my mind in the future as I read more real and truthful comments on other people's real and truthful blogs and not only my own? Thanks!
I used to defend him in arguments with democrats for his tough stance towards terrorism, but after 5 years of nothing but repeated tramplings over our rights as citizens and *STILL NOT BIN LADEN CAPTURE*, I see no other choice at this point to turn my back on the present administration and condemn what he's turned America into: Home of the over-reacting politically-correct police state.
Headline also exposes the authors bias! You couldn't even work for CNN your so obvious!
Keep in mind that the Bush Administration is making an "executive privilege" argument that basically says that aides need to be able to give the president honest advice without fear of reprisal. If Congress is able to subpoena them and make them testify, that will make most people limit what they say.
The same argument goes for the sources reporters use. Sources need to be able to be free to talk to reporters without fear that they are going to be outed.
Our nation was built on public knowledge. The public has a right to know what our government and usually everyone else is doing. This is called free speech. The truth can be shared only if all of us don't need a lawyer in our back pocket editing our words every time we speak or write.
Free speech is stifled when it becomes a trial in court every time we say something someone doesn't like or they want our privileged source. The chilling effect kills two birds with one court trial. The source is scared to death to share with anyone and the reporter (blogger) is scared to death to repeat the information.
Who wants to repeat the government is buying two dollar hammers but paying a thousand dollars for each hammer if they are going to be pulled into court to reveal their source?
On the flip side who wants to repeat a source who heard two men threatening to hit the White House with dozens of RPG? Right or wrong, the reporter and the source could be in deep trouble as they are pulled into court for trial.
The legal fees of fighting the government each time one is pulled into court can and has stopped many who have run up against lawyers and judges. A one time learning experience is usually enough to stop most free speech advocates from repeating news not already published.
Free speech is the only thing that keeps our corrupt government from being worse than it already is. Don't ever forget government is not an entity. It is comprised of people who thirst for power. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
always,
Barb
Remember, Hillary was wanting controls on the net long before the blogs started building as a force.
Chalk up another warped piece of journalism for CNET. Heh...;) It's almost become predictable. I mean, if one "Bush Administration" figure goes on record as opposed to something, but 12,000 Democrats also oppose it--hey, that won't stop CNET from "blaming" the "Bush Administration"--drum roll and violins, please.
Here's a tip for CNET: "freedom of speech" doesn't simply mean "freedom to tow the National Democratic Party Line," uh, whatever that may be on any given day of the week, it also means the freedom to disagree, doesn't it? CNET often forgets about that niggling little aspect about freedoms like speech, doesn't it? Often the biggest critics of free speech are only concerned with the issue as it concerns somebody else--and that usually means they don't want that "somebody else" to enjoy the same freedoms of speech they believe they are themselves entitled to.
Unreal.
See, the Bush Administration is the Administration in power. WHen Clinton was there, it was "the Clinton Administration"... see how that works?
The truth is, even Republicans can't stand the sound of those words -the Bush Administration" . That's because his administration is the worst administration in the history of our country. Second only to Nixon's assault on democracy.
It's like listening to someone shout "I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK" when you call them by name.
It's hilarious.
The Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration.
Yeah, that makes my skin crawl too.....
It is true that there are some Dems and some Repubs who both oppose and support this bill.
But the administration's support is, properly, the headline for two reasons. First, politicians of both major parties tend to listen closely to the Justice Department when it talks about what will imperil criminal investigations, and adjust legislation accordingly. Second, Bush still has the veto power.
Still, as some posts in this thread including the parent demonstrate, it's easier to take potshots at articles without actually taking the time to understand what's actually going on. Why am I not surprised?
With the focus of this being independent journalists needing to be qualification requirements and for organizations like newspapers and TV Stations the organization themselves has to be certified and licensed with most of the focus going towards the independent ones who must prove they are actually journalists and not just playing house like one.
Just because you post on a blog on other space on the Internet doesn't make your a journalist. If it did then this post of mine right here makes me a journalist and that is bull.
I have no love for the Bush administration but I feel this time their concerns are very well justified. We don't need every Tom, Dick or Harry with Internet access being classified and protected as if they were a journalist. They aren't.
Robert
Trouble is, these days, most journalists aren't journalists. And yeah, Robert, maybe they should be certified ... not in the sense you intend.
The live-blogging of the Libby trial by the Firedoglake crowd was an excellent example of on-the-spot journalism. And I'm not even in their partisan camp.
Next, I suppose "reporters" should be required to submit their work to the Government-bureau of "Truth and Information"... before the "public" can be informed of Government mistakes, and corruption..?
Perhaps you just dont understand the most basic principles of "Free-Speech", or... "The Peoples Right to Know". Or, perhaps you are simply GROTESQUELY IGNORANT of virtually ALL American History, The Constitution, and the Law. Or, maybe, you are simply lacking in any common-sense, what-so-ever.
For your information... YES, ANYONE that makes information available to the "public" IS a "journalist" (That WAS our Founding-Fathers clearly-stated position). Any other interpretation absolutely GUTS the protection of "Free Speech", upon which, ALL other American-Freedoms depend. And, the detrimental consequences, to ANY free-society, of such RHETORICAL, HYPOCRITICAL, WORD-GAMES, has ALWAYS, ultimately, been utter repression and enslavement.
NO ONE, can be allowed to decide who should be allowed to provide information to the "public". Any attempt to do so, while talking about a "free society" is, at best, delusional. At worst, it is INTENTIONAL-TYRANNY.
As the story points out, no one is protected from the legal-ramifications of being part of a criminal activity. And, all "journalists" are still subject to slander, libel, and military-secret, restrictions and prosecutions.
Frankly, those officials that scream the most about state-secrets, and "responsible journalism" are, most often, the very ones desperately trying to use their power to cover-up their-own abuses, and scandals.
What is going on right now, in this country, is a good case in point. The current administration, is the most secretive, and controlling in generations. They also have had the worst record of lying, corruption, and criminal-activities in decades. It is no small wonder that they want to pull the cloak of fear, and obfuscation, over the American People.
Honestly, I dont give a DAMN about your PERSONAL-OPINIONS regarding who is, or is not, "...a journalist". You are free to express that opinion. But, I am just as free to point-out just how asinine, foolish, and absolutely OFFENSIVELY un-American, your ridiculous assertions, are.
And, I dont have to ask anyones -permission-, to do so...
IN YOUR DREAMS we'll let the STATE decide who's a journalist. In your wildest most right-wing corporate-fascist every-liberal-dead dreams.
THAT is PURE fascism...that is the DEATH of every civil liberty and freedom of speech itself. The STATE decides you who can and cannot be a journalist. The State revokes your license. The State regulates journaists. That is the old Soviet Empire that Bushies are chomping to recreate here in America.
After you kill me and hundreds of millions of others, maybe then you'll get away with that, but not before.
Our Founding Fathers didn't ASK the Crown if they could put pen to paper and tell the truth. We need MORE of that spirit and LESS of Robert-the-corporate-shill who was told to float this idea to see how people would react. Take this back to your corporate masters, ********. This country is going into civil war the day the politicians and State think they can tell us who SHALL be a journalist and who SHALL NOT. This country is going into civil war the day the corporations TRY to muzzle me or anyone else by overthrowing the Constitution. That's when YOU establish yourselves as the traitorous, seditious CRIMINALS that you ARE and We the People, under the authority given to us by the Constitution of the United States of America TAKE our country back and HANG THE CRIMINALS IN THE CORPORATIONS BY THEIR NECKS UNTIL DEAD.
People, the CRIMINALS are in power. This is a criminal state.
News Breakers
Whistle Blowers
All should be protected.
What is Bush afraid of? Neocons?
No, Bush can no longer show the documents used to restart the Gulf War. Sandy Berger stole them.
"my instinctive reaction to anything the Administration doesn't like is to assume it will be good for the "average" American."
Isn't this the current philosophy for the Democratic Party these days?
I happened to catch some of the House hearings on this matter last night on CSPAN. There was a gentleman from Columbia university who's name I don't recall who criticized the bill as being 'unnecessary' in that its unlikely, given long term usage of privileged sources, that such a source would be called to testify. This gentleman was highly regarded by Rep Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the committee holding the hearing. Conyers gave a rather glowing intro I thought.
Yet CNET chooses (I use that word specifically) to criticize the "Bush Administration" for speaking out against the bill. Granted the author only looked at it from the 'blogger' angle to this bill, but it's still not a fair view of the bill, or any arguments for or against. Not even a link to the text of the bill. Here is one:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2102/show
With the First Amendment... comes responsibility!
I'm shocked that a University professor would not understand that!!!
What I want to know is what is his ulterior motive for saying such?
Walt
Dan Rather was guilty of not verifying his source. Fox "news" is entertainment. Dan Rather has a career built on honest and solid reporting. With a few mistakes. Some worse than others. The basic story of Bush and his service in the reserve is public now. He was busy doing other things, busy partying and busy politically, He was not at all interested in being in service to his country. He was a failure in college, a cheerleader for christs sake, a failure in every one of the businesses he started. He "stole" the football stadium. Traded the best players off. He failed as govenor of Texas and now.... He's failed at being president.
Fox news is purely entertainment. Not even close to journalism. It is obvious they use their protections to promote some of the most terrible reporting.
My heart aches.
I've finally got off my ass and joined a couple groups that promote american values and take action. Moveon.org and Democrats.com (not the democrat party) I've given more money in the last election cycle than I have in my whole life. (sad I know, but true)I don't think I'm alone. I think there are many, many other people that are "waking up and smelling the coffee" from what a terrible mess our current administration has made. God help us. Our democracy is fragile.
- Bush Administration Greatest Threat to American Freedom Today
- by Dr_Zinj June 18, 2007 9:23 AM PDT
- The problem with the Bush Administration is that they seem to think the citizens of America exist to serve them. If I remember correctly, the last time somebody named George did that, we started an armed insurrection and formed our own country.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (74 Comments)People can't be free if they don't know what's going on. Government control, aka censorship, prevents people from knowing what's going on and effectively controls their actions, including how they vote. Which is why they government shouldn't be allowed to censor anything.