Senators, White House Reach Deal On Media-Shield Bill

[SpartanDem]

Source: AP

The White House, key senators and media representatives have reached a compromise on legislation to protect reporters from being forced to disclose their confidential sources in federal court.

Senate supporters of the so-called media shield bill said Friday that the deal gives the government authority to override those rights in certain national security cases.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the agreement "strikes the right balance between national security concerns and the public's right to know." He said it would preserve a strong defense for reporters trying to protect sources while making sure the government can do its job of protecting citizens.
(snip)

Under the compromise, the balancing test would be eliminated in classified leak cases where the government can show that disclosure of a source's identity is necessary to prevent or mitigate an act of terrorism or substantial harm to national security. But the government would also have to provide specific facts: it could not make a national security claim and then withhold most of the details.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtFdL5WgMpDoh6DkPOpYJsKUvrggD9BLLDVO0

[DJ13]

1. Would the Pentagon Papers ever see the light of day under this bill?

If no, its a bad bill no matter what kind of happy face they put on it.

[optimator]

2. more shitting on the constitution

more tyranny

[Selatius]

3. The devil is in the details. The balancing test was a great start, but it was weakened.

From the article:

The original bill centered on the idea that a balancing test should be applied under which a federal judge would weigh the public's right to know versus national security claims made by the government. The administration wanted to eliminate that balancing test in many cases involving terrorism and other security cases.

Under the compromise, the balancing test would be eliminated in classified leak cases where the government can show that disclosure of a source's identity is necessary to prevent or mitigate an act of terrorism or substantial harm to national security. But the government would also have to provide specific facts: it could not make a national security claim and then withhold most of the details.

[bemildred]

4. The only cases that matter are the ones where they want to silence reporters

or prosecute reporter's sources. Reporting on government activities is obviously political speech, and subject to protection by the first amendment. Any "law" which does not allow them to speak the truth as they find it is unconstitutional on its face.