Is this good or bad for the First Amendment...

[sarisataka]

Senate panel Oks measure defining a journalist
By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press
Updated 9:54 am, Thursday, September 12, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Senate panel on Thursday approved a measure defining a journalist, which had been an obstacle to broader media shield legislation designed to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal their sources.

The Judiciary Committee's action cleared the way for approval of legislation prompted by the disclosure earlier this year that the Justice Department had secretly subpoenaed almost two months of telephone records for 21 phone lines used by reporters and editors for The Associated Press and secretly used a warrant to obtain some emails of a Fox News journalist. The subpoenas grew out of investigations into leaks of classified information to the news organizations.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Senate-panel-Oks-measure-defining-a-journalist-4808643.php

I can see it going either way, helping a free press by protecting sources or inhibiting a free press by limiting who is a "covered journalist"

[PoliticAverse]

1. It's good if you fit the definition of journalist, bad if you don't but are. n/t

[geek tragedy]

2. If you make it so that everyone gets to be called a journalist, it pretty much

becomes a blanket ban on subpoenas of all kinds.

[maddezmom]

3. The wording is pretty broad though...wonder if you need to be paid

The vote was 13-5 for a compromise defining a "covered journalist" as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would 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.

[geek tragedy]

4. Not terribly overbroad, imo. Probably better to make sure to catch anyone

who might be a journalist.

[sarisataka]

7. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R)

is against it, so that is my first clue it is more good than bad.

I am a bit ambivalent as I can see this hindering new start up press groups.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. They are actually trying to do this? Unbeleivable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliffe

I don't care what they call themselves, or what the politicians call them, if they're publishing the news.

[1-Old-Man]

8. My god what a ploy. It is we the people who have rights, not certain job categories who enjoy them.

You see, what is actually being said with the application of this definition is that some people are Journalists and they have a right to privacy but the common people who do not fit this definition have less rights. But in truth this is exactly backwards. It is the individual who holds the rights and what they do for a living is utterly immaterial.

[geek tragedy]

10. This is about privileges, not rights.

There is no general right to refuse to cooperate with criminal investigations or civil subpoenas.

[Jenoch]

9. I think this broad definition of 'journalist' seems ok.

Somebody else might find a problem with it that I have not thought of though. Shield laws are important to a free press.

I think there are a lot of people out there who consider themselves 'citizen journalists' who won't quality. I do not think a blogger should necessarily be considered a journalist. There are a lot of websites out there claiming to be 'news' when in fact they have a definite slant to their material.