Paper Tigers

[unixronin]

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved a federal shield bill that aims to protect journalists from compelled disclosure of their confidential sources, in language identical to that of a 2007 bill that overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives.  The new bill heads next to the floor for a new, full House vote.

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, or H.R. 985, would offer a qualified privilege for journalists, meaning they could not be compelled to identify sources or hand over confidential material except under several scenarios:  If doing so would prevent harm to national security, or death or bodily harm; if it were essential to the investigation, prosecution or defense of a crime; if it were deemed “critical to the successful completion” of a legal, non-criminal issue.  Also, a reporter could be pressed for confidential information if it were necessary for pinpointing who leaked trade secrets, certain health data or classified national security information.

In other words, “journalists [...] could not be compelled to identify sources or hand over confidential material” ... unless the government felt like compelling them.  Those exceptions, in the hands of government, are so broad you could sail a supertanker through the holes they leave.

This bill is reminiscent if the Clash song “These are your rights”:

You have the right to free speech,
As long as you’re not dumb enough to actually try it.

Comments

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

I’m opposed to press shield laws. Universally opposed to them. Press shield laws have the de facto effect of putting the government in the position of deciding who is a “real journalist” versus who is simply a blogger or an enthusiast or whatnot — and then it gives this newly–minted privileged caste new legal rights not available to the public at large.

And we’re supposed to believe that this is somehow done out of a love for the First Amendment? An Amendment which is meant to secure rights for the people, not for government–recognized members of a particular profession?

If I can be subpoenaed for information, then so too can a journalist, and vice versa. Fair is fair — and so–called “press shield” laws are infamously unfair. We’re better off without them, and better off without journalists having the delusion that they are somehow privileged above and beyond those of every other citizen.

After all: if they have more rights than citizens, then it’s hardly “citizen journalism,” is it?

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

From the legislation: "COVERED PERSON- 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."

So in short, Not You. You have to testify...

This might have been a pretty good definition of a journalist 15 years ago. Today, it's bullshit and worse than nothing.

What do you wanna bet that a cub reporter on their first assignment who hasn't even gotten a paycheck yet manages to qualify if they works for a 'major publication'.