Federal Journalist Shield Law Advances

A journal entry by twitter alerts us that the US Free Flow of Information Act cleared the House Judiciary Committee last week. It is designed as a shield for the confidential sources of journalists, and the bill's sponsors intend that the definition of "journalist" be broad enough to encompass at least some bloggers. The language voted out of the Judiciary Committee stipulates that protections apply only to those who derive "financial gain or livelihood from the journalistic activity" — this could cover anybody with a blog and an AdWords account, and this worries some opponents. The Register's coverage notes "several exceptions regarding terrorism, national security, imminent death and trade secret leaks." If this act becomes law, it would override all state shield laws, some of which may now provide stronger protections. The bill seems unlikely to go anywhere any time soon as its counterpart in the Senate has received no attention, and in its present form it would likely be opposed by the Bush administration.

I don't get the rationale

[dosboot]

Either the government doesn't have the right to force you to divulge something or they do. Who I am should make no difference. The casual blogger vs non casual blogger distinction is stupid.

Override?

[bkr1_2k]

Since when do federal laws that have lower standards override higher standards at the state level? That's like saying that the federal drinking age (in the 80s) of 18 made it mandatory for all states to comply with 18 instead of 21. That's not the case.

Thats daangerous territory

[Anonymous Coward]

Letting our government define who are and aren't journalists is really dangerous.

I must have midded someting....

[delirium of disorder]

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

*Except regarding terrorism, national security**, imminent death and trade secret leaks.

**"National security" never means the safety of the people living in a nation. If it did, perusing national security would mean working for a sustainable economy, a non-agressive (defensive only) military policy, or perhaps health care and highway safety. "National security" must actually mean something like, "actions taken to further enrich the military industrial complex" or "the right to invade other nations to control their resources".

Wall Street Journal

[iknownuttin]

FTFA: Boucher's amendment also specified that "foreign powers or agents of foreign powers"--including a government-controlled newspaper--and any "foreign terrorist organization" designated by the Secretary of State cannot receive the protections.

Now, I realize that they're aiming at, let's say, a newspaper owned by the Chinese Government, but I have this sinking feeling that it will be applied to some paper like the "Wall Street Journal" since it is now controlled by an Australian. I just see some Attorney General saying that a "Foreign Power" also applies to foreign business men. Laws are never in black and white. They can always be interpreted to mean more than they originally intended; hence, the need for courts.

Re:I must have midded someting....

[Canthros]

What has this to do with a federal shield law?

Re:I must have midded someting....

[Attila Dimedici]

If someone tells me that they are going to kill another person and then goes and kills that person, why should the fact that I am a journalist make a difference in whether or not the courts/police can compel me to tell them who it is? What if the person who told me, also told me they were going to kill someone else?

Anonymous Cowards

[An Onerous Coward]

Well, the Bush administration is against the bill, so I suppose I ought to be for it.

I think journalists often use anonymity irresponsibly. It's not just used for whistleblowers exposing shady dealings and national conspiracies. It's also used to hide legitimate conflicts of interest from public view. In the run-up to the Iraq war,

Does anyone remember that time when a source on the Iraq war, who demanded that he only be referred to as a "senior administration official", came across as a bit of a Dick [salon.com]?

Anonymity shouldn't be used for trivial reasons [salon.com], and it shouldn't be used to give those in power a soapbox for publishing self-serving disinformation. Hint: if you're interviewing an administration official who thinks the president is about to rush us into a disastrous war, anonymity might be right for you. If you're interviewing an official who wants to use anonymity to make his pro-war opinions sound like they're coming from a more legitimate and objective source than, well, him... the American people deserve to know how credible the source is.

The law itself is probably a good idea, but journalists have lately been willing to grant anonymity to clearly undeserving sources.

Legitimacy...

[Notquitecajun]

Hopefully, this adds a little bit of legitimacy to people who actually know something of what they're writing about. The inherent problem with journalism is a journalism degree - you may be able to write a nice-sounding story, but what do you know about things like engineering, biology, history, police work, law, or anything on what is being written about?