First Amendment Train Wreck in the Making: U.S. Senate Tries to Define Who Is a Journalist

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/media/1st-amendment-trainwreck-making-us-senate-trying-define-who-journalist


After the revelation that the Department of Justice had taken phone records from Associated Press journalists as part of a leak investigation, members of Congress reintroduced the Free Flow of Information Act, also known as the federal media shield law. The basic purpose behind the law is to protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources to the government.

The bill’s chief sponsor, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), claims it has wide support in his chamber, and has identified five Republicans who would vote to support it. It is expected to come up for a vote in April.

But the devil here is in the details. While the law does extend certain protections to some journalists, it is very particular about who exactly it covers. The Associated Press’s Donna Cossata explains:

"The bill's protections would apply to a 'covered journalist,' defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

"It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a 'covered journalist' who would be granted the privileges of the law.

"The bill also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as 'newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast ... or motion picture for public showing.'"

[struggle4progress]

1. If folk want a shield law, definitions -- of what and who it covers -- is unavoidable

Otherwise everyone, who wants to avoid testifying about something, claims to be a journalist and points to a blog post as proof; and after years of litigation, the courts eventually construct the definitions

Here's a link to the bill text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s987/text

[melm00se]

2. The issue I have with these definitions

is that they are rooted in the old world of journalism. There are examples of citizen journalists who break news on their blogs which might easily run afoul of this law and an overzealous prosecutor.

While the court can extend these protections, this would require that the accused (for want of a better word) to expend significant amounts of money to raise this kind of defense for something that should be automatically protected.

While struggle4progress is correct that definitions need to be applied, it appears (IMO) that these proposed definitions are far more restrictive than is necessary.