Thread: Senate Amendment Would Give DOJ Power to Determine Who Is a ‘Journalist’

Senate Amendment Would Give DOJ Power to Determine Who Is a ‘Journalist’

Posted on September 13, 2013 by Cowboy Byte

An amendment is moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee that would essentially allow the government to determine who is a journalist for purposes of legal protection of sources. For purposes of protecting a source, a “journalist” under law would be anyone who:

Works or worked for “an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service…news program; magazine or other periodical…or through television or radio broadcast…” These people would have to have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” Opinion journalists might not be covered. Bloggers and citizen journalists – citizens who commit acts of journalists without working for such an outlet – would not be covered, unless it was determined that “at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” In other words, the government – the Department of Justice – would now determine whether primary intent was news distribution or political concerns.

Continue Reading on www.breitbart.com

Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/24505/senate-a...Qs3GfDEs065.99

In other words, the government – the Department of Justice – would now determine whether primary intent was news distribution or political concerns.

Sounds like they are trying to stifle opinions, and look who is going to be the determiner, the DOJ!! Impressed yet?????!! And guess who is running the show on this one!!!!



http://watchdog.org/100682/feinstein...-a-journalist/Feinstein wants to limit who can be a journalist





By Eric Boehm / August 12, 2013 / 163 Comments



I'VE HAD IT UP TO HERE: U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., says citizen journalists and bloggers should not be covered by a federal shield law.


I’VE HAD IT UP TO HERE: U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., says citizen journalists and bloggers should not be covered by a federal shield law.

By Eric Boehm | Watchdog.org
The most recent congressional threat to the free press in the United States comes from California Democrat U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
In a proposed amendment to a media shield law being considered by Congress, Feinstein writes that only paid journalists should be given protections from prosecution for what they say or write. The language in her proposal is raising concerns from First Amendment advocates because it seems to leave out bloggers and other nontraditional forms of journalism that have proliferated in recent years thanks to the Internet.
“It rubs me the wrong way that the government thinks it should be in the business of determining who should be considered a journalist,” said Ken Bunting, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the Missouri School of Journalism.
But on the other hand, Bunting said, there is a great need for federal shield law in light of recent attempts by the U.S. Justice Department to force journalists to give up information about confidential sources.
The difficulty with writing any such law — this is the third time Congress has attempted to craft a federal shield law — is that any such law would have to set standards for who counts as a journalist or what qualifies as an “act of journalism.”
There are shield laws on the books in 40 states, but they do not apply in federal court. The First Amendment of the U.S Constitution promises that the right to a free press “shall not be infringed.”
The proposed federal shield law would protect journalists from having to comply with subpoenas or court orders forcing them to reveal sources and other confidential information. The important question, of course, is how to determine that the shield law applies to one person and not another.
In other words, how do you determine someone is a journalist?
Feinstein, chairwoman of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee (and a staunch defender of the government’s right to spy on anyone at any time), does not want to see a shield law that would protect employees of WikiLeaks and other leak-driven news organizations.
At a congressional hearing on the matter last week, Feinstein said shield laws should only apply to “real reporters.”
An amendment offered by Feinstein would extend shield-law protections to those who work as a “salaried employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information,” though students working for news outlets would similarly be covered. The definition seems to leave out the new tide of bloggers and citizen journalists who thrive on the Internet.
Calls and emails to Feinstein’s office were not returned on Monday.
In states with shield laws, the difference between being protected by them or not can be great.
Take the case of Crystal Cox, for example. A self-described “investigative blogger” from Seattle, Cox broke a story about financial malpractice at a major investment bank, prompting a lawsuit for defamation.
Cox argued in court that she should be covered by Oregon’s shield laws, but a judge found she was not protected because she was not part of the traditional media.
As a result, she was ordered to pay $2.5 million to the investment firm.
The laws in many states are lagging behind the reality of journalism today, where anyone with a camera, smart phone or a computer can break an important story.
“The distinction between who gets paid to do journalism and who doesn’t is going to be come essentially meaningless as we go forward with this technological revolution,” said Kelly McBride, a senior faculty member at the Poynter Institute, a journalism school based in St. Petersburg, Fla.
McBride, the recent author of a book on journalism ethics in the Internet age, said shield laws are meant to ensure a vibrant marketplace of ideas where all voices can be heard.
“To the extent that you limit the shield law, you limit who is in that marketplace,” she said.
Feinstein is not the only member of Congress seeking to limit the definition of journalists. Last week, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., sent letters to a number of organizations – including the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which runs Watchdog.org – seeking information about the legitimacy of nonprofit investigative reporters.
A spokesman for Durbin later told Watchdog.org the senator was not targeting any specific individual or group.
Boehm is a reporter for Watchdog.org and can be reached at Eric@PAIndependent.com. Follow him on Twitter @EricBoehm87

Please, feel free to "steal our stuff"! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more

By Eric Boehm

http://watchdog.org/100682/feinstein-wants-to-limit-who-can-be-a-journalist/

Senate Bill Attempts To Make The “Right” of Free Press a “Privilege”

2 days ago | Politics, US | Posted by Ben Swann

• September 16, 2013

The Senate Judiciary committee has moved forward a bill that would offer “Shield Law” protections for journalists and prevent them from having to testify about their work. The bill, moved forward on Thursday after members of the committee took it upon themselves to define who is a journalist and who is not.
Senator Charles Schumer says that this bill “balances the need for national security with that of a free press.” Though wouldn’t that beg the question, if the press (media) is restricted (balanced with security), how could it be free?
Of course the real story here centers around Senator Dianne Feinstein who has for weeks insisted that the committee must create and limit a definition for the title of “reporter”. Feinstein says that she cannot support everyone who has a blog with “special privilege”, going on to say “If Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have privilege. I’m not going to go there.”

Some groups like The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press are supporting the bill which was approved by a vote of 13-5 as being a step in the right direction. The group supports a Feinstein amendment to the bill which allows it to cover journalists on several levels including freelancers, part-timers and student journalists. Though the bill itself doesn’t actually cover anyone because it goes on to allow the Feds to “compel disclosure” from journalists who have information that could stop or prevent crimes, prevent acts of terrorism or information that could cause “significant harm to national security.”
So lets go back for a minute to what Senator Feinstein said about Edward Snowden. The Senator believes that the shield law should be limited because if it is not, Snowden could start his own website and be protected? But if the Feds believe that what Snowden shares with a reporter is a danger to national security, even under the structure of this law, the shield law would be ineffective.
Of course, through all of this, the biggest issue is that Congress is attempting to pass a law to “define a privilege” that is not a privilege at all. Freedom of the press is a right. According to Black’s Law Dictionary “a constitutional right is a right that has been guaranteed by the United States Constitution that cannot be violated by laws or by Congress.”
Freedom of the press is a Constitutional right and cannot be revoked, even for national security purposes. You likely already know this, so why is it important? Because please notice that Senator Feinstein above refers to extending shield law protection as “special privilege”.

Go back to Black’s Law Dictionary. A privilege is defined as “A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens.”
The biggest difference between a right and a privilege… one can be revoked and the other cannot. Consider for a moment the men who helped to frame revolution for the colonies at the birth of the country. No single person was more influential in sowing the seeds of revolution than Thomas Paine, who in 1776 self-published a pamphlet titled “Common Sense.” Paine, was not a “professional journalist” in fact, he was a corset maker by trade. And yet it was Paine who was among the first to openly reject the idea of the colonies subjecting themselves to the British government thousands of miles away. During the early battles of the Revolution when the Continental Army suffered humiliating defeats, it was Paine who published papers titled “American Crisis”.
Poet Joel Barlow might have best described the role of Thomas Paine, one of the original “alternative journalists” in America by saying “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.”
When Senator Feinstein claims that protecting a “real reporter” is important but protecting the rights of a “17 year-old with a website” is not, she and other members of Congress are attempting to define who has permission to speak and who does not.
(Visited 20,281 times, 6,016 visits today)







http://benswann.com/senate-bill-atte...tm_campaign=nl