TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:The first reporter to go to jail instead of giving up a source was in 1848 so it's not some new thing. I'll bet early press had no belief they could witness crimes

Clearly that's not what we were talking about or what this amendment is about. Why did you decide to introduce this bogus argument?

Umm, yes it is what we are talking about. Why would the sources need to be concealed? Either they (the reporter) have info about some criminality or they, by receiving certain information, are a party to the criminal offence. Now that is just the criminal side and there is also the civil side but clearly it is a big part of what this law, since it passed, is about.

You seem pathologically incapable of distinguishing between witnessing a crime and reporting a crime....which makes me wonder.....do you work for the government???

If you witness a crime you can be compelled to testify. Why you would think otherwise is strange. You also can be compelled to give testimony in civil cases where there is no criminality. The 5th A says you can't be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself. So you can be compelled to otherwise give testimony. Matter of fact that first reporter back in 1848 wasn't jailed for refusing to give testimony in a court case. He refused to answer questions in a Senate inquiry. There is no constitutional right not to give testimony against anyone but yourself.

Now none of this is about reporting a crime either. You don't go to jail for not coming forward but if they find out you have info you can't withhold that info.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:The first reporter to go to jail instead of giving up a source was in 1848 so it's not some new thing. I'll bet early press had no belief they could witness crimes

Clearly that's not what we were talking about or what this amendment is about. Why did you decide to introduce this bogus argument?

Umm, yes it is what we are talking about. Why would the sources need to be concealed? Either they (the reporter) have info about some criminality or they, by receiving certain information, are a party to the criminal offence. Now that is just the criminal side and there is also the civil side but clearly it is a big part of what this law, since it passed, is about.

EEllis wrote:and then just not give details because they were reporters. Also lets not forget a lot of times the crime is talking to reporters especially when dealing with Federal issues. Whistle blowing may be one thing but what about people giving up real secrets for pure politics?

Given the selective prosecution of that "crime", it's questionable that you even introduced it.

Huh? Why is that questionable? There are people leaking classified info all over the place and while they may claim they are whistle blowing usually their motives are much more murky.

EEllis wrote:The justice department already has rules making subpoenas to the press the last option for federal law enforcement not the first.

Oh, gee. That makes it so much better. We promise we won't violate the Constitution first. We'll just do it when we need to.

It isn't a constitutional issue.

EEllis wrote:What about civil cases? Say someone lies and gives some false info to the press. Should the reporter be able to deny you the ability to find out and sue someone who damaged you? It's not some simple situation that is because "cops can't solve crime anymore".

First of all, a good reporter will have two solid sources, not one. Secondly, it isn't the reporter's job to hand you your civil case on a platter. What makes you think it should be?

Hand me my case? If they are a witness with information how would applying the law to them like everyone else be handing me my case? What if you were Richard Jewell? I would want everyone of the people who leaked my name to the press and caused so much damage to be found and action taken against. That's not having the reporters "hand" me something. The reporters were a party to the activity and are arguably the only source for that info. Not to mention that the media seemed to be in a race to push that story the farthest how can one sue a paper for liable or defamation if the paper is shielded from giving their sources. "I had someone who told me but I won't reveal who" but was there really a source and was it legitimate? If reporters are shielded then you couldn't find out.

The purpose of the Constitution is to tie the hands of the government so they cant abuse their power. Every time we ignore their abuses, we chip away at freedom. Eventually we arrive where we are now. The Constitution means very little, and the President routinely ignores the laws he is sworn to uphold. No one does anything about it, so the abuses continue and grow larger daily. It won't be much longer before America is gone forever, if we don't start drawing the line.

It's funny that we say, "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned", yet we're so eager to help the government throw people in the clink for what we perceive as "crimes' because we don't think it should be so hard for the government to jail people. If someone commits a crime, leave the reporter alone. Prove a crime was committed. Do your job without taking unConstitutional shortcuts because it's too hard.

If a doctor, lawyer or psychologist witnesses a crime, they have a duty to report it. They do not have a duty to report that a patient told them they committed a crime. Nor does a reporter. And the government should no more go after a reporter than they would a doctor, lawyer or psychologist. Reporter shield laws would not be necessary if the government acted lawfully.

Where is a doctors privilege in the constitution? It's not. Neither is a reporters privilege. This is not a constitutional issue and pretending it is is just ignorance of the constitution and it's interpretation by SCOTUS.

baldeagle wrote:Isn't it odd that the Founding Fathers saw no need to provide "special protections" to reporters? Apparently it never occurred to them that the government might use its power and might to coerce reporters into revealing their sources. Apparently they thought that if a reporter committed a crime, they should go to jail like everyone else, but if they reported a crime someone else committed they had not committed a crime and could not be threatened with jail. Apparently additional protections are now needed because the government has overstepped its bounds and chosen to harass reporters into revealing their sources because law enforcement is abysmally incapable of developing their own cases and convicting people based on evidence. So now the government gets to decide who's protected and who's not and by doing so compromise the integrity of reporters by forcing them to play nice with the government or be subject to rule changes that place them in legal jeopardy.

It's all so complicated. Far too complicated for us simple citizens to understand, so we don't get that special privilege. Has nothing to do with rights, though. It's all about privileges. This is the current state of "logic" and "reason" in this country.

The first reporter to go to jail instead of giving up a source was in 1848 so it's not some new thing. I'll bet early press had no belief they could witness crimes and then just not give details because they were reporters. Also lets not forget a lot of times the crime is talking to reporters especially when dealing with Federal issues. Whistleblowing may be one thing but what about people giving up real secrets for pure politics? The justice department already has rules making subpoenas to the press the last option for federal law enforcement not the first. What about civil cases? Say someone lies and gives some false info to the press. Should the reporter be able to deny you the ability to find out and sue someone who damaged you? It's not some simple situation that is because "cops can't solve crime anymore".

VoiceofReason wrote:
As I understand it, this law is intended to keep the federal government from intimidating or coercing members of the news media for “speech” the government does not want. Now congress, members of the media and people are caught up arguing who and by what criteria will decide who is a “journalist”.

You misunderstand the law and the Constitution. "intimidating or coercing members of the news media for “speech” the government does not want", and by the way that's a great turn of phrase, is already unconstitutional and this bill would have no effect on that at all. Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) established that "Until now, the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination," the justices said. "We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do." The court did acknowledge a tiny exception: "Official harassment of the press undertaken not for purposes of law enforcement but to disrupt a reporter's relationship with his news sources" might violate the First Amendment." A separate but concurring opinion by Justice Powell said on the same case "As indicated in the concluding portion of the opinion, the Court states that no harassment of newsmen will be tolerated," he wrote. Consequently, a reporter who thinks "his testimony implicates confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement" can move to quash the subpoena. In response, the judge must "balance the competing interests on their merits"—the need for the testimony versus the reporter's "asserted claim to privilege."

So basically all this bill does is shield reporters sources when they promise to keep them confidential. That is a Media Shield Law. Media has gained a sort of privilege in most places because historically they have earned it by spending time in jail rather than giving up sources. It's been claimed that abridging that privilege would hinder the Media's ability to gather info to report the news to the public. While that has been rejected by SCOTUS it has been granted by lower courts and , again, has been bolstered by many members of the media who have quite publicly gone to jail rather than reveal sources.

This bill will not affect anyone's 1st A rights. It just doesn't. Now it might grant reporters an unnecessary privilege....

MeMelYup wrote: Then they will redefine entity.

OK so? If that's true then anything can mean anything so what why argue?

baldeagle wrote:No, I think free speech is free speech, and the government shouldn't be able to intimidate ANYONE for writing something, true or false, on their blog, in their newspaper, on their tv channel, on the facebook page or anywhere else. Where in the Constitution does it say that if the government doesn't like your speech they can arrest you and force you to divulge your sources for the information if you want to be free again?

OK but can we pretend to be on topic because that is not what a media shield law is about no matter how often you say it.

G26ster wrote: Because it has the following definition of a "journalist.":

"(A) means a person who— is, or on the relevant date, was, a salaried employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information by means of..."

I think that leaves an awful lot of room for interpretation, and does exclude bloggers who are not salaried, or contractors, or agents of entities. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that the motivation behind this amendment is to prevent little Jimmy in his basement from being shielding against testifying, nor do I believe all judges will have anything near the same interpretation of what a jornalist is or is not.

"agent of an entity" covers bloggers, covers anyone who belongs to anything by definition. Even if they are the only individual involved in in the reporting. If that entity is journalistic( did I just make up a word) in nature than they would be covered.

baldeagle wrote: No, I think free speech is free speech, and the government shouldn't be able to intimidate ANYONE for writing something, true or false, on their blog, in their newspaper, on their tv channel, on the facebook page or anywhere else. Where in the Constitution does it say that if the government doesn't like your speech they can arrest you and force you to divulge your sources for the information if you want to be free again?

If you have knowledge of a crime and the cops know they can subpoena you and the court can require your testimony. How does that violate your right to free speech?

Dragonfighter wrote: What if that same kid hears about some government scandal while at dinner and "reports" it? This is stupid, It's okay to "give" protection to a class of people and not others? That kid has as much protection under the constitution as any "reporter". The press already has the natural right to freedom of speech and the kid should have the same protection as any elite from the Fourth Estate. Adding this law narrows the scope of that protection and abridges the freedom of speech.

One the privilege isn't necessarily valid in the case of national security (govt official) Two there is usually some sort of agreement that the reporter will not reveal a source. No reporter would have protection under the situation you describe. Now you would have a argument if you think the govt official would pick out the kid and have him promise not to tell where he heard "xyz" but to go blog it and tell as many people as possible. Of course I could worry about gravity turning off and everyone flying of the earth which is a bit more likely.

Dragonfighter wrote:

U.S. Constitution wrote: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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

-em mine

So? Granting extra protection does not, by definition, abridge anything. It doesn't restrict, limit, or prohibit.

G26ster wrote: Really?

First of all it's not the bill that is in question, it's the amendment proposed by Sen Feinstein..

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to "real reporters" and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.

"I can't support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … "

And

"Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a "covered journalist" as someone who gathers and reports news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and information." The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any "legitimate news-gathering activities."

That means, if you are just a blogger (see Feinstein quote above), and do not work for an entity or service, whether full time or freelance, you are not covered depending how the court may decide. You are the same as the 17 yr old in his basement.

There are three choices here


1. Cover everyone
2. Cover only legitimate journalists ( a definition that will be debated forever)
3. Cover no one

You have recognized only choices 2 and 3, as if choice 1 was not an option. I think that is what the debate here is about.

1 isn't an option. Think about it. No one could ever be compelled to testify about anything they have seen or heard because they are a "reporter". Heck I could claim the same because I write here and that would be absurd. And even the Feinstein amendment gives pretty good coverage. Besides regular reporters it covers part time, freelance, students (and why would you think it doesn't cover internet blogs as long as they do something with original created content? ) and anyone a judge thinks is a reporter. Now you want to get to it start looking for cases where you think someone should get that protection and didn't. With almost every state having a shield law this has to of come up and how the States have handled it does give up an example to work off of here. Honestly looking at the various state laws it is more inclusive than many. Many often just refer to reporter, news person, or Media and that's what I would perhaps prefer. I think one can tell what a reporter is and I also believe as a whole judges in the US are and would be proponents of a free press and generally inclusive over who or what a reporter is. I honestly believe that anyone that create original news content with any regularity, as is a blog that doesn't just paste a news story but actually calls people up that are involved to ask questions, would be included. I also don't think a kid who tweets that someone just taught him to cook meth or just watched a violent crime should be afforded the right to "shield" his source because he tweeted it.

G26ster wrote:

EEllis wrote: I'm going to hold my tongue because saying what I'm thinking would be considered a violation. This does not remove 1st A protection for anyone. It gives added protection for media. Laws can't remove constitutional rights so what the heck are you guys worried about? You can't have it both ways. And by the way do you even know what the bill says? Because your "examples" have no connection to what the bill is about. It doesn't protect what reporters "report". That is already protected and this bill has nothing to do with that. It protects sources not content.

Is this not an amendment to a protection bill that only gives the protection to so-called legitimate journalists to not reveal their sources? This means the ability of those not considered "legitimate" is reduced to publish important subject matter. They won't get the story in the first place. Why would a source wishing to remain anonymous give it to them? Then the issue really is, who is legitimate and who is not, and frankly the gov't deciding that is an issue. To me, it is a back door way of limiting the free speech of those not considered legitimate because they will not get the story in the first place, due to their source not being protected, and an ever evolving definition of "legitimate" that will change at the whim of those in power.

Well first Fed courts just said that making reporters give up their sources isn't a restriction of free speach. And did you bother to look at who would be considered a reporter? It has nothing to do with where or how and everything to do with actual reporting. If you "report" stuff then you are a reporter, if you don't your not. This bill keeps some kid who tweets where he went to dinner from being considered a reporter. Now if you want to have a real discussion about it fine but the distortions and hysteria are a bit much

G26ster wrote: So, "equal protection under the law" is meaningless?

Well for starters the 14th A is for the States not feds but what that would mean here is that all reporters should get this protection not just white ones. So no it's not meaningless it's just mis applied here.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:This does not remove 1st A protection for anyone. It gives added protection for media.

Now think about what you just wrote. "Granting" added protection to a special class of citizen is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. If a professional reporter cannot go to jail for refusing to reveal a source but I can, then how do I have the same level of speech rights as him or her? I do not.

You don't get what a right is.

So you think the better way to go is to limit everyone including the press?

Without the source you have nothing to report. The law strips the ability of a citizen to report a story that requires protecting a source. If a blogger writes about an egregious governmental behavior, the veracity of which he obtained from confidential sources, then he will be put in jail. A reporter, writing the same story, will not. How in God's name can you not see that as an abridgement of our rights?

Again you don't even know what you are complaining about just that it's got to be bad because govt is bad. You are wrong about the bill and it's effects The blogger is covered. How can you be spewing this venom when you didn't bother to know what the bill says?

Government grants nothing. They only take away. They're not granting special rights to reporters. They stealing our free speech rights by governmental intimidation.

Make excuses all you want. It won't change the truth.

Your right they are not granting a right but giving a protection. Want the truth? Read the dang bill.

G26ster wrote:

EEllis wrote: I'm going to hold my tongue because saying what I'm thinking would be considered a violation. This does not remove 1st A protection for anyone. It gives added protection for media. Laws can't remove constitutional rights so what the heck are you guys worried about? You can't have it both ways. And by the way do you even know what the bill says? Because your "examples" have no connection to what the bill is about. It doesn't protect what reporters "report". That is already protected and this bill has nothing to do with that. It protects sources not content.

Is this not an amendment to a protection bill that only gives the protection to so-called legitimate journalists to not reveal their sources? This means the ability of those not considered "legitimate" is reduced to publish important subject matter. They won't get the story in the first place. Why would a source wishing to remain anonymous give it to them? Then the issue really is, who is legitimate and who is not, and frankly the gov't deciding that is an issue. To me, it is a back door way of limiting the free speech of those not considered legitimate because they will not get the story in the first place, due to their source not being protected, and an ever evolving definition of "legitimate" that will change at the whim of those in power.

Oh so make sure no one has protection, yep that's the smart way to go