Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet News

Bloggers Not Eligible for Shield Law? 401

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the shell-games-and-other-fun dept.
Drew writes "Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), a co-sponsor to the Free Flow of Information Act 2005, has said that he does not expect bloggers to receive the protections proposed by the shield law under consideration. From the article: 'Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?' The bill is supposed to restore the Free Press in the US, Lugar said. But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bloggers Not Eligible for Shield Law? More

Bloggers Not Eligible for Shield Law?

Comments Filter:

  • Why Define? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Allen Zadr ( 767458 ) * <Allen@Zadr.gmail@com> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:34PM (#13776420) Journal

    As an answer (I know, I shouldn't try)...
    Lets start with WikiPedia:

    "A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people."

    What dismisses my boss from being a journalist, when he tells me that production is ramping up, and I should hurry to get the new systems in place? He's disseminating information about a current event.

    Was Ben Franklin being a common ruffian when he wrote the famous Dogood letters?

    What I'm suggesting is... maybe there shouldn't be a definition for Journalist beyond what is accepted in common use. I think it's dangerous to put an 'unreasonable cost of entry' into a field that is supposed to be about free information. I also hate to put 'Media Conglomerate' employees in a category beyond the rest of us.
    ...At least not without a way ANYONE can freely apply for the same benefits. Of course, the article explains this part of my the point better than I do.

    Then again, I'm just one semi-anonymous geek among friends.

    • Re:Why Define? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jafiwam ( 310805 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:44PM (#13776515) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps change the wording to protect those practicing journalism, rather than journalists.

      That way, the event say... going public with evidence that the Secratary of State committed treason maybe... is reported in a blog is an ACT of journalism no matter who the person is.

      So an ordinary person would get the protection if they were publishing stuff on a web site, but wouldn't if they were sharing information among friends at a party and a cop happened to hear it.

      Otherwise, the definition of a journalist is going to be too hard to figure out, but the ACT of journalism is something that can be defined by a list and a discriptive paragraph for each item on the list.
      • I agree, to a point.

        If someone gives me a picture to post to my blog of this guy smoking something with a woman, "Post this, it's funny. But you didn't get it from me". It's a funny picture, so I post it as-a humor piece. Can't tell at first, but this guy turns out to be the Mayor of my city, who is otherwise unmarried, and the girl turns out to be a crack-whore.

        Great. So, then - we come to find that the something is probably drugs and the Crack-Whore ended up dead, and heavily doped up on Meth. The

    • If (and that's a big if) we want to put some sort of definition or door charge on the word 'journalist', I think the place we need to start is by putting us (bloggers) level with the Media Conglomerates. For all of us that spout nonsense, and obvious bias, it's just as 'factual' as the subtle biases that ripple through almost every major network.</gripe></bitch></moan>

    • Re:Why Define? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:51PM (#13776579)
      Lets start with WikiPedia:

      Here's a tip: Anyone who is skeptical regarding whether a "blogger" is a journalist is NOT going to be swayed by a Wikipedia cite.

      More than likely, it'll have just the opposite effect...
      • Thus written... Among friends

        I'm writing to a Slashdot posting. Many slashdotters, maybe not you, but many of us use the "WikiPedia" and even use the "Journal" feature of SlashDot.

    • Re:Why Define? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alex P Keaton in da ( 882660 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:53PM (#13776604) Homepage
      Hmmm- a lot of small town "journalists" who work for small newspapers work only part time, a few hours a week. They have other full time jobs. I believe that the way to explain the shield law, is that it will protect corporate journalists. Even many small free alternative papers are owned by big corporations now....
      If you are an independent journalist, i.e. blogger, you have no rights. If you want rights, go work for a big company like GE (NBC) etc.... This scares the shit out of me- abridging our freedom of speech scares the shit out of me, sorry for the language.

      • So what's new here? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:26PM (#13776859) Homepage Journal
        There's long been a saying that freedom of the press applies only to those with the money to own and operate a press.

        One interesting about the Internet is that you no longer have to be rich to "publish". Anyone can now act as a journalist without first having the price of entry (or being hired by someone with the price of entry) to the tradition printed press or radio or television. Those kept out the riff-raff by requiring printing or broadcast equipment that most of us couldn't afford.

        This bill is really just an attempt to maintain this tradition of press freedom belonging only to the wealthy and to corporations.

        So it's not really abridging any freedoms that most of us ever had. It's merely reacting to the internet giving this freedom to the masses, which was never the case in the past.

        • Re:So what's new here? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:03PM (#13777506)
          You really shouldn't look at it that way. You do have the freedom to publish, it's just that now you have additional, affordable tools (computers and the Internet). The proposed bill is just an attempt to take away your rights because the darkside is scared of the power of the masses to take away their power.

    • Bloggers are the equivalent of editorial writers. They put a spotlight on a specific issue and add their own personal slant on it by writing opinions on it.

      Conversely, journalists USUALLY strive to do nothing but present the facts of the specific issue they're covering, and hardly ever use words like "I" or "In my opinion" or "I think", something that bloggers ALWAYS do.

      Some people would argue that newspaper editorial writers are journalists. I disagree, they are not. People like Bob Novak are not journalis
      • Yet most "editors" require that their reporters divulge their sources to THEM, but also will protect the sources from outside peering eyes. I believe the intent is to cover editors from divulging this information as well.
    • What dismisses my boss from being a journalist, when he tells me that production is ramping up, and I should hurry to get the new systems in place?

      Same thing that means that I'm not a journalist just for telling my daughter not to cross the road because there's a car coming.

      The Cambridge Dictionaries Online website defines [cambridge.org] journaism as "the work of collecting, writing and publishing news stories and articles in newspapers and magazines or broadcasting them on the radio and television".

      Granted, it should be

  • Does it really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lordkuri ( 514498 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:35PM (#13776430)
    Does it really matter if they get the same "protections" as "real" journalists?

    I've seen those disregarded quite a bit lately, so where's the benefit?

    • Re:Does it really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jeepmeister ( 241971 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:54PM (#13776608)
      As a former journalist (defined by my 5 years of employment as a writer/photograhper at a daily newspaper in the Los Angeles metropolitan area with a circulation of over 100K) I can tell you that the shield law does matter. I'm far less concerned over bloggers not receiving equal protection under the shield law than I am that the effectiveness of the shield law may be diluted by the controversy over bloggers credentials as journalists. I'll feel that way until some as yet to be defined in my mind number of bloggers are willing to go to jail for the right to keep sources confidential. Sorry if this sounds hostile, but to a journalist the shield law is a significant issue.
      • ok, and as a "former journalist" aren't you even the slightest bit concerned with the way they've been treated lately?

        Law or no law, if you piss off the wrong people, you *will* suffer for it.

        Remind me what country I'm living in again?

      • Re:Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by greg_barton ( 5551 ) <greg_barton&yahoo,com> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:23PM (#13776831) Homepage Journal
        As a former journalist (defined by my 5 years of employment as a writer/photograhper at a daily newspaper in the Los Angeles metropolitan area with a circulation of over 100K)

        So, you as a journalist working at a publication with circulation of over 100K (in a single metropolitan area) would get protection, while a blogger writing on a site with 1000K page hits per day (from all around the nation/world) would get none?

        That makes...uh...sense?
      • As a current working journalist, I agree. What blog boosters tend to forget, in all the clamour about "grassroots journalism" vs. charges of professional or corporate elitism, is that the audience of blogs is very, very small. According to a recent Forrester survey, less than 2% of Americans who go online read blogs once a week or more, compared to the 65% who read their local paper. Most people -- especially those who don't have the money to pay the Internet toll, or the time to surf the blogosphere -- get

        • Re:Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Craig Maloney ( 1104 ) * on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:31PM (#13776901) Homepage
          So, what happens when the readership of blogs is 1/3 of newspapers? 1/2? Do they somehow get legitimized because of readership? How many news outlets now quote blogs as a new source? When is there a tipping point where an anonymous blogger gets the same protections as a journalist?

          I don't have the answers, so I'm interested in your opinion on this.

      • Re:Does it really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Shamelessly copying Glenn Reynolds [instapundit.com] here:

        ONE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE TITLED NOBILITY was its immunity from some legal rules laid on the commoners; that's why such titles were an important boon that the King could bestow on favorites. Reading this statement by Richard Lugar on the proposed journalists' shield law, which probably won't cover bloggers, I wonder if we're getting into the same territory:

        In other remarks about the legislation at IAPA's 61st General Assembly, Lugar acknowledged that the legis

        • Problems:

          1. Nobility is hereditary, the condition of being a journalist is not.

          2. Re: loyalty. King's rule is arbitrary and cannot be overruled, hence bad in this case. However, this bill is written by legislators which are appointed by representative government. The determination of who is covered and who is not is not out of our control.

          3. By this definition, what's not a title? Are we saying that the state can't regulate who practices law or medicine? What about police officers carrying firearms in no-ca

      • Re:Does it really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @05:38PM (#13777346) Homepage
        What about a site like the Drudge Report, which has a readership in the millions? What's the litmus test for being a reporter? Training? Readership? Employment? Whether or not one's been to jail? Or sort of a four-cheese blend?

        I'll feel that way until some as-yet to be defined in my mind number of bloggers are willing to go to jail for the right to keep sources confidential.

        I guess I feel minorities should ride on the back of the bus until some as yet to be defined number of minorities are willing to go to jail for the right to get equal treatment. Or, we could just afford people the rights they're already guaranteed without requiring them to prove their merit in order to receive protection under the law.

        Put another way, the framers put Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment, along with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Peacable assembly. These rights are granted to individuals, not government-approved entities. There is no test for the legitimacy of a religion in order to receive the same Constitutional protections for Jedism as Judaism. To create a test for whether a religion receives constitutional protection would be the same as requiring state approval for a religion, and would be in direct conflict with "Congress shall make no law..."

        Now I'll be the first to admit that I think bloggers are a bunch of self-important hipsters who really don't have much of a contribution to make to the field of journalism on the whole, but I would also describe most reporters the same way.
    • Why does it matter who's a "journalist" or not? The constitution guarantees freedom of the press, not journalists. This was a time when lots of people had presses and made lots of pamphlets. Should the consitution not be interpreted to mean that anyone who wishes to publish something is protected by the 1st Ammendment?

      Do I have to be a journalist to have free-speech protections? And why should anyone who publishes be forced to reveal sources? I thought this was supposed to be a free country. Clearly,

  • Simple... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mightybaldking ( 907279 ) <mightybaldking@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:35PM (#13776435) Journal
    A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.

    • A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.

      Yeah? Says who?

    • A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest.

      It's not that simple. Define "reasonably." What's reasonable to one person might not be so reasonable to another.

      • Reasonable Person Standard (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Brushfireb ( 635997 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @05:15PM (#13777204)
        The reasonable person standard is a common use in courts. The whole reason you use "reasonable" person is so that then courts (and jury's) can make decisions about specific cases.

        You dont actually WANT to define reasonable, because it can change over time. The reasonable person standard, however, makes it clear that if there is a problem, the courts and peers will decide.

        This is common in contract, liability, even criminal law. WHy not use it here?

    • A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.

      So, as long as the author is writing something of their own and not reposting someone else's work then they are a journalist? Does that open AP wires, written up in other media, not journalistic media?

      So, my website where I write about my experiences elsewhere th

    • While that is the "classic" defenition of a journalist, as many have pointed out, much of what is published in the media is actually the work of PR firms, re-releasing modified press releases. And I am not talking about those fake articles in you copy of Reader's Digest. Real magazine articles can often be traced back to a dubious source: some marketing firm that is pushing PR.

      Considering the state of affairs, I think it is immoral to assume that because some bloggers may be fueled by corporations, it wo

  • Neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in a free press. Why is that? Because a truly free press in the US would show both Democrats and Republicans as the scum that they are. Luckily, that's what we're beginning to see with blogs. The faults in the system are being exposed. And out come the politicians, trying to dam up that freedom of expression gusher before it's too late for them.

    • Ah yes, cynicism.

      Remind us, please, how many Democrats are currently under indictment. Or hell, go back 10 years, 20. Take your pick.

      Democrats have had their problems, but they have never even approached the levels of corruption the Republican party has perfected and institutionalized.

    • You sound like a milita man or the Unabomber.

      If, by "Republicans [and] Democrats", you mean people who are loyal to their party first and foremost, and use party affiliation as their compass for morality, then you might be right.

      I, for one, don't honestly believe these people are in the majority or that public servants, including the elected ones, are trying to jeopardize the rights and ideals upon which their great nation was founded. Most of these people could be making more money and have more powe
    • Yes, blogs are out there, and possibly even revealing all the corruption in current politics. However, the problem that blogs face (right now) as a credible news source is the same kind of problem that video games face. The majority thinks that both subjects are just something for kids. This is why a lot of blogs aren't taken seriously (even the few that possibly should), and this is the same reason M rated games are being torn apart in the media as 'bad for children'.

      Until the public can realize that some
    • Before the internet, loonies like you (not loony for disliking the predominant parties, but loony for thinking that a) they're EVIL* and b) the new trend is really all that different) used to pass around badly photocopied pamphlets.

      *I would argue that the interests of any political party are simply mostly orthogonal to the welfare of their constituents.

  • Definition of journalist (Score:5, Funny)

    by thc69 ( 98798 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:36PM (#13776441) Homepage Journal
    Hmm..Journalist....

    Doesn't it have something to do with fail-safe filesystems?

  • Amendment XIV (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:37PM (#13776448)

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

    sounds like all Americans (except you illegal alien and H1-B dudes) are subject to equal protection.

    • IANAL, but amendment XIV applies only to state laws, not federal. the federal government is free to grant protections to "journalists" and withold those protections from others, under this amendment. so the 14th amendment has no bearing on the issue at had.

      that said, the 5th amentment has been interpreted by the supreme court as enforcing equal-protection guarantees on federal law, as well.


    • Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

      sounds like all Americans (e

  • Debated this in high school (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LeonGeeste ( 917243 ) * on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:37PM (#13776452) Journal
    This actually came up as a debate topic when I was in high school. The topic was something along the lines of "Resolved: that the First Amendment ought to protect journalists from revealing confidential sources." One clever guy on the debate though of a cool argument that if the government really protected "journalists" from revealing confidential sources, that would mean it would have to, at some point, define journalist. Now, however it defines a journalist, it will also have to be the one interpreting it, which effectively means state regulation of journalism: you meet their (self-serving) standards, or you don't get to shield sources. This means the government has three options:

    1) Allow anyone to refuse to reveal where they got info, all the time (bad).

    2) Allow no one to refuse to reveal where the got info, ever (bad).

    3) Arbitrarily pick and choose who counts as a "journalist" and thus must reveal info (bad).

    I don't think the right to shield a source should have anything to do with who you are (journalist or not), but some other standard weighing public interest concerns against the need for confidential sources to feel safe.
    • 1) Allow anyone to refuse to reveal where they got info, all the time (bad).
      Please tell us why this is bad

    • Arbitrary (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jhoger ( 519683 )
      How about the "Pants Test." If an article was not written while wearing pants (pajama bottoms don't count), then you don't get protection under the shield law.

      Really though, I think the Congress should just word it broadly and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis whether someone was primarily acting as a journalist or not. As you say, there's really no good way to decide whether someone is acting as a journalist or just going through the motions to allow themselves to hide sources of information. T
      • I think the Congress should just word it broadly and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis

        Now that's a reasonable suggestion! Unfortunately, I suspect it'll be lost amongst the Slashnoise...
      • Really though, I think the Congress should just word it broadly and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis whether someone was primarily acting as a journalist or not.

        So you don't mind companies sending Cease and Desist letters to whomever they want to and letting the courts decide who actually has to follow them? Or sending DMCA take down notices...

        Letting the courts decide just means the people with the money to spend on lawyers be able to beat the people unwilling to spend large amounts of

  • This attempt to control the media is unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) * on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:37PM (#13776453) Journal
    According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the "covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes "any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service." The legislation also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such entity."

    Why am I not surprised?

    A grassroots news dissemination method comes into being and the powers-that-be are doing what they can to crimp it so that it doesn't cause them so much squirming. Journalism is an something you do, not who you are employed by. And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh and his innumerable clones on the radio were they bloggers instead of government propagandists I would demand the same protections for them as given to anyone who communicates information to an audience.

    The bill is necessary to help the United States regain its status as an "exemplar" of press freedom, Lugar told the IAPA. "Even as we are advocating for free press (abroad)... we'd better clean up our own act," Lugar said.

    I believe that about as much as I believe anything said by the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh, et. al. This bill is, intentionally or not, an usurpation of our rights. Calling feces "cake" does not make it edible, Senator.

    • And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh

      Any day you get to correctly use "fucktard" in a sentence, be it with the family, at work, or on slashdot, is a good, good day.

    • I don't understand. The bill covers "any entity that disseminates information by... electronic, or other means and that publishes a... periodical in print or electronic form"

      An entity is something that has its own independent existence. That covers people as well as companies, and would certainly cover even a loosely organised group of people. An electronically published periodical would seem to me to include a blog, as well as news sites and other more traditional information sources.

      Unless the terms have

  • If not press, then what? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by j_cavera ( 758777 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:38PM (#13776459)
    Especially considering that the "mainstream press" is relying more and more on the bloggers for their news. As I see it, this is nothing more than freelance journalism, which is now and always has been a respected and vital part of the mainstream news agencies. Certainly the distinction has been made that freelance journalists are journalists by trade whereas bloggers are full time (x) and only part-time journalists, but is this is fair distinction to make, as many freelance journalists also act as consultants, analysts, etc.?
    • Especially considering that the "mainstream press" is relying more and more on the bloggers for their news. As I see it, this is nothing more than freelance journalism, which is now and always has been a respected and vital part of the mainstream news agencies.

      President Clinton said of Rush Limbaugh at one point during his presidency that Limbaugh is dangerous because people take what he says to be truth, but there's no "truth detection" apparatus that holds him accountable. He's not a "journalist." It'

  • In the raw (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Medievalist ( 16032 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:38PM (#13776460)
    Most bloggers do not charge for their works, therefore they are not billionaires, therefore they can expect no consideration from the current administration.

    Bloggers who happen to be billionaires, but still do not charge for their works, will be considered enemy combatants.

    Bloggers who do charge for their works, and who are billionaires, are to be called "legitimate journalists" and not bloggers. They will be expected to contribute heavily to the Republicrat or Demolican of their choice.

    You know it's true. :)
    • Most bloggers do not charge for their works, therefore they are not billionaires, therefore they can expect no consideration from the current administration.

      Nor do they spread propaganda on behalf of the current administration.

      Besides the BS that CBS did with the Bush service record, what mainstream media source has done anything earth shattering since watergate? (And in my ignorance, before?)

  • Why should journalists be any different? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_real_bto ( 908101 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:38PM (#13776461)
    Why should "professional" journalists receive special government protection of any kind? The law should protect amateurs and professionals alike. The government has no place deciding which journalists are designated to receive protection under shield laws.
  • What's wrong with defining "journalist" as anyone who publishes, or produces for publication, descriptions of real events derived from multiple corroborated specific sources"? Where "publish" means "offers for distribution to anyone in the public, without restriction beyond small fees", and which is subject to the "fair use" provisions for redistribution, and where "source" means "an identified witness to the events or physical evidence of the events"?

    Even though that would leave out much of today's class o
  • They used to pass out press badges or press cards to members of the press that got them special privs. I remember my dad's let him park in handicapped spots, fire lanes, etc. when covering stories in Chicago, back in the 1970s.

    "Member of the Press" meant something. It sounds like that idea isn't going away.

    Part of it is going to stem from who gets invites to functions as "members of the press". Can you get into Disney's "Press Days" event? How about an invite from Company X to their press event?

  • I hear there's a war over there, to protect personal freedoms and instill democracy. Guess I'll move my blog, err, homepage, from joelsanda.blogspot.com to joelsanda.blogspot.iq.

  • I can't give you a definition of a "journalist" but I know one when I see one!
    • Defining a journalist is simple, go to dictionary.com, and you'll see, its 'one who keeps a journal'. Further refine that, and look at what a 'journal' is, and you'lll see, it's a record of events kept regularily.

      The real issue here is, most reporters these days are actually writing editorials, not journals. The difference is, a journalist reports the facts, with no interpretation, an editorial adds interpretation of the facts.

      This is the little detail that confuses the entire 'blogsphere'. They dont

  • easy algorythm for this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wardk ( 3037 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:42PM (#13776493) Journal
    this is easy. which bloggers are journalists?

    if ( blogger_supports_current_powerbase ) {
        party_on();
    } else {
        gitmo_baby();
    }

  • We already have a Shield Law (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TopSpin ( 753 ) * on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:48PM (#13776554) Journal
    But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?

    A constitution should be short and obscure. - Napoleon

    Such definitions are not provided. In an ideal world you elect representatives with sufficient honor to not require precise definitions.

    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.

    Given no clear means of delineating who is or is not covered by the above, I claim everyone belongs. That includes reporters that quote anonymous sources, rich interests that want to run campaign adds and bloggers that want to disseminate their stuff. What is a 'blog' if not a peaceable assembly?

    Why do we need a definition, or a 'shield' law? On one hand we want to hang a politician for his press leaks and on the other hand we don't want people thrown under a bus for information. If Rove walks because the DOJ can't compel some 'journalist' to give up names then so be it. Stop throwing reporters in jail.

    Liberals take care; most of whatever stretching you do to the word 'press' to get your way is probably also applicable to 'militia'.

  • Simple answer (Score:4, Insightful)

    by killkillkill ( 884238 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:49PM (#13776565)
    'Journalist' are all those who expresss an opinion that I agree with
  • to the Republican party?

    There was a time when I wasn't ashamed to be associated with them, now it seems they are trying to out-do the kooky left for crown title of loony-bin material.

    Free speech indeed...

  • Commercial Business not journalism? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:52PM (#13776586) Journal
    Ahem, earth to Sen. Luger: Nearly all journalists work for corporations, whose primary motivation is profit. They're all businesses.

    It appears that if you blog and want to get away with it, you will ned to establish that you are a periodical publishing online. Since periodical is not defined, it may be an irregular periodical, or perhaps they will require Slate or ArsTechica status. Hard to tell. Based on the corporate interests lined up against such a "free speech" law, you should expect some very narrow language in the several-hundred page final draft. It will likely be sandwiched between amandments on prayer in schools and pork funding for some bumfark-nowhere bridge project.
  • So all people are equal, but Journalists will be more equal than others. I am disturbed by the idea of granting special legal priveleges to one particular profession (unless the profession was programmers - that'd be cool!).

  • What makes a journalist (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:58PM (#13776641)
    I think some bloggers should qualify.
    I think time should be a factor.
    I think the number of articles you publish should be a factor.
    I think that your publication is always available to read by the public should be a factor.

    ----
    So I would call person who regularly writes articles for public consumption and who has been doing so for at least a few months a journalist.

    I would also say that anyone who started to write for an organization composed of qualified journalists could gain that status faster.

    • Back before everyone and their 13 year old sister had a blog, they were generally known as 'Journals'.
    • Where is the word Journalist derived from? One who keeps a journal.
    • Do bloggers keep journals? Yes

    => Bloggers are Journalists
  • Cant have those pesky citizens running around speaking their mind. Nope cant have that.

    But we can allow the 'journalists' that have been bought and paid for by the parties. Yep, its ok to let them talk.

    What another f-ing scam.
  • OK, people. This is pure batshit insanity all around.

    first, just because it's a blog doesn't mean the blogger is a journalist, half of these are purely personal journal sites that are now called blogs because that's the "in" term to refer to often updated things. Any law that presumes that something posted is (or isn't) journalism is silly.

    Further, free speech should be strongly maintained for "bloggers", for just that reason -- whether they're journalists, personal diarists or political activists, a law

  • Are "journalists" mentioned in the Constitution? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stankulp ( 69949 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:13PM (#13776742) Homepage
    The First Amendment only applies to "journalists?"

    How convenient.

    Now SeeBS, NBC, ABC and CNN can go back to manufacturing memos to use against enemy politicians and broadcasting sensational lies when natural disasters occur.

    Thank God we can all get back to normal.
  • OK, try this:

    A "journalist", literally, would be someone who is for or contributes to, a "journal". What is a blog but a person's journal?

    OK, that might not be a great basis for argument. How about this - in many eras, there have been tiny or one-person magazines published. In the 80's and 90's, that was known as the 'zine movement. These folks, on average, often had circulations in the hundreds (if not dozens ;) ). Yet, many of these people were definitely journalists. A blogger, writing about the same sub
  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Newspapers printed on recycled paper are going to be given 100% immunity from all legal implications of their actions, because a new buzz word was invented to describe newspapers printed on recycled paper, and thus it was granted a special case.

    Are all drivers formula one drivers, and are all cyclists bike couriers? Are all bloggers even news reporters? If you are a blogger, are you implying your opinion is more reliable and thus should be protected? The very fact that this is now an
  • 'Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists?'

    How the hell do you parse that? And I wonder about the native language of whoever wrote that sentence. Anyway, I can see several possible parsings, none of which are really "native" English, and which have rather different meanings.

    Maybe it needs a few commas, semicolons, parens, or something.

    (For example why would we not consider them real journalists here, but consider them real jo
  • For the most part, bloggers are people who merely react to things in the news.
    Journalists are the ones who provide the news. In my opinion, as a general term, bloggers are NOT journalists.

  • What you are reading now, is an "article" written by me.

    This little comment on /. is just one of my "articles".
    I write "articles" in a similar format several times a week
    on Slashdot.

    Therefore I am a prolific journalist, as is everyone else who
    posts here regularly. ... or are we going to define "articles" next?

  • Blogger control Act (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @05:02PM (#13777112)
    This is nothing more nor less than the Blogger Control Act of 2005. It is the last dying gasp of the 'mainstream media' to remain relevent in the face of the change we all see coming. Ten years ago the idea of government regulation of journalists would have received universal condemnation, but fear is forcing the press to do something very stupid.

    Once the government gets into the business of handing out official press badges it will serve to draw a nice sharp line between the MSM and the bloggers, with one group getting to continue as things are now while the bloggers get pretty much driven out of the US IP space. Don't believe me, think I'm daft? McCain Fiengold will see to it. Once bloggers are offically outside of the 1st Amendment's protection, that it only applies to Press Guild members, political topics will be pretty much off limits. Yes this will include Slashdot within a month or so of an election.

    And for awhile the Press will be happy with this new law they are buying..... but only for awhile. Then they will learn the true power of the Dark Side of Government.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

Close