TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

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....

EEllis wrote:

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.