TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster

This thread has become very confused by varied opinions of the proposed Media Shield Law, the Constitution, and the Feinstein amendment. You can't lump all 3 together in one neat package, as each of us see possible issues in one or more of those areas . I have been arguing that the Feinstein amendment was too restrictive on the definition of "journalist." Some have argued it restricts the First Amendment by not covering "all" citizens, and some have argued the law is just fine as written with the Feinstein amendment.

For me, the "good news" is the the final version passed in the Senate committee changes the Feinstein amendment to a broader definition of journaist, but allows for judicial discretion in each individual case.

Here is an article on the law that has gone to the floor of the Senate:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/s ... -imperfect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

G26ster

EEllis wrote:
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.

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.

G26ster

EEllis wrote:
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

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.

G26ster

EEllis wrote:
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

So, "equal protection under the law" is meaningless?

G26ster

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.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 5 matches

Re: Feinstein: 1st Amendment Is A Special Privilege, Not A R

Re: Feinstein: 1st Amendment Is A Special Privilege, Not A R

Re: Feinstein: 1st Amendment Is A Special Privilege, Not A R

Re: Feinstein: 1st Amendment Is A Special Privilege, Not A R

Re: Feinstein: 1st Amendment Is A Special Privilege, Not A R