So now we're expected to have serious "debates" about whether journalists need to be approved

[woo me with science]

by the government of the United States of America?

Please don't feed the trolls.

[leveymg]

1. Unfortunately, Feinstein and Durbin have pushed a Bill that would do just that. So, we need to

debate what they're doing and speak up about it.

[woo me with science]

3. There is no debate here.

The idea is unconstitutional and fascistic. It needs to be called out, stomped on, and those giving it even a hint of credence shamed and exposed for either their shameful ignorance or complicity with authoritarians and fascists. Then ignored, if a site called "Democratic Underground" cannot muster a PPR.

The corporate propaganda operates in part by starting "thoughtful discussions" about things that are unthinkable and blatantly unconstitutional in order to normalize them. That is why we already have indefinite detention, "kill lists," and a surveillance state in this country with a Constitution that clearly prohibits all three.

This garbage needs to be called what it is, and disposed of.

[TeamPooka]

5. +1000

[leftstreet]

6. +1 Why not a 'thoughtful discussion' on starvation?

Is it really that bad?

Aren't many people obese anyway?

Could there be benefits?

[woo me with science]

7. +1000000

[geek tragedy]

14. Most clueless post of the day:

The idea is unconstitutional and fascistic. It needs to be called out, stomped on, and those giving it even a hint of credence shamed and exposed for either their shameful ignorance or complicity with authoritarians and fascists.

Yes, we must stomp on the heads of anyone who disagrees with us, for they are authoritarians.



You go on with your holy war against thoughtful discussion--it's your real enemy.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Unlike you, we recognize the difference between denouncing ideas and stomping on heads. nt

[geek tragedy]

17. Denouncing journalist shield laws is something only

authoritarians and their useful idiots do.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-statement-shield-bill

Reporters Committee statement on shield bill
Press Release | September 12, 2013
Reporters Committee statement on shield bill
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013. Our statement:

We are pleased to see that the Judiciary Committee passed this bill. It goes a long way toward ensuring that reporters will be protected from subpoenas for their confidential information and sources. It's not a perfect bill, but it tries to cover a broad array of reporters. While it is not as inclusive as we would like, it is not nearly as limited in that area as previous attempts at a federal shield law have been.

It still is important that we work with Congress and the administration to make sure journalists' records are not scooped up in broad surveillance programs, and that Justice Department attorneys respect the rights of reporters, but today's action is a significant step in the right direction.

About the Reporters Committee

Founded in 1970, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press offers free legal support to thousands of working journalists and media lawyers each year. It is a leader in the fight against persistent efforts by government officials to impede the release of public information, whether by withholding documents or threatening reporters with jail. In addition to its 24/7 Legal Defense Hotline, the Reporters Committee conducts cutting-edge legal research, publishes handbooks and guides on media law issues, files frequent friend-of-the-court legal briefs and offers challenging fellowships and internships for young lawyers and journalists. For more information, go to www.rcfp.org, or follow us on Twitter @rcfp.

Either those who support shield laws are fascists, or the people making that argument are abject morons.

I have my opinion on the matter.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Shields already exists. We denounce the limiting of the shield to a few officially recognized

The law cuts out bloggers and DU posters from the shield, among many others.

If the law is so good, extend it to cover any reporting on any topic.

[Jesus Malverde]

40. The law only serves to enshrine a dying media it's place as the official stenographer...nt

[geek tragedy]

63. So, the ACLU and RCFP are fascist enablers who need to be set straight by the oracles

of truth at Democratic Underground?

[Jenoch]

72. Bloggers and DU posters are not journalists.

I have a degree in journalism and yet I am not a journalist. There are standards that need to be met by working reporters.

The shield laws are needed to protect reporters and to support the 1st Amendment.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

78. 49 states have shield laws or court precedents and there are Supreme Court precedents.

Why should you not be protected and a so-called "working journalist" protected?

Why should bloggers not be protected?

Is the article you write not as free as the article I write or the article Carl Bernstein writes or the article Bill O'Reilly writes?

Free speech and freedom of the press are designed to protect speech that you (and/or others) don't like, not speech that you or I or Diane Feinstein or John McCain do like.

[Jenoch]

92. I guess it depends on the circumstances.

If some blogger is making unsubstantiated claims and is defaming someone without proof, then I do not think they are acting like a professional. I'm not going to debate the details, but I have read a lot of blogger crap and 'citizen journalist' crap that certainly is not journalism. Most of it is propaganda and not objective journalism.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

96. Defaming & unsubstantiated claims covered by other laws. This law covers different angle. nt

[Jenoch]

141. You are correct, but that's the kind of crap

I see on topical/political blogs whixh ells me enough I need to read that tells me the blogger is not a journalist.

[bvar22]

154. Like "Brietbart" or "The Peoples View" ?

I agree. They are not Journalists,
but the ARE protected by the 1st Amendment.

Limiting the protections to ONLY Government Approved "Journalists" is something more appropriate to the old Soviet Union.

[Jenoch]

158. Sites like Breitbart and Huffongton Post

are not blogs. You can disagree with their focus, but they're not blogs.

Edit: i was not familiar with The People's View, but their own 'About Us' tab describes themselves as a blog.

[geek tragedy]

106. The shield does NOT already exist. Also, posting at DU isn't fucking journalism. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

113. 49 states have shield laws or court precedents and there are Supreme Court precedents. Fucking aside

Yes, DU is not pornography.

[hunter]

119. But the blathering idiots on Fox News are practicing "jounalism" ???

You protect everyone, or you protect no one.

Otherwise you end up with a government that "decertifies" journalists it doesn't like.

[Uncle Joe]

105. Not when the vast majority of the journalists protected by said "shield law" are owned by

6 mega corporations.

Every other American citizen journalist is made to jump through the hoop of going to court to prove they're a journalist.

[geek tragedy]

107. Every legal privilege requires the person asserting it to establish that

they are entitled to it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

116. 1) Free speech & press is a right, not a privilege. 2) Yes, have to establish citizenship ...

... if citizenship or legal residency is in doubt or an issue.

However, I think free speech and press apply to all humans inside the US regardless of citizenship status (even undocumented aliens).

[geek tragedy]

127. We're debating a legal privilege here, not something considered a right

under current law.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

129. Amendment 1: The right to a Free Press is restricted by restricting the definition of journalist.

By saying that only people who can afford to sue in Federal court for protection will have protection (or have mega-corporation backing) is restricting journalism and hence restricting the Right to a Free Press.

[geek tragedy]

131. How else would one claim privilege from a federal investigation

but by filing in federal court?

That is a nonsensical point you're raising.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

133. By being an operative of a mega-media corporation. Duh. Read the bill. nt

[Uncle Joe]

117. We're not talking about practicing medicine or even law. In the Information Age this a direct

affront against citizens journalists' First Amendment Rights and it's all done on behalf of the existing monopoly that controls traditional "news" outlets, ie: television, radio and major publications.

We already had shield laws, not to mention libel and slander laws, this is just political curtailment using the judiciary as the club.

[geek tragedy]

128. Please cite the shield law governing federal investigations, nt

[Uncle Joe]

139. I misspoke we have state shield laws not federal but this bill as written doesn't

go far enough in protecting citizen journalists.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/senate-finally-frees-press-kind

The biggest change between this bill and S. 448, which died in 2009, is who's covered by the legislation. In 2009 (prior to Wikileaks being a thing), the bill had a narrow-ish definition of journalist, skewed to the legacy media, but still possibly inclusive of professional bloggers, citizen reporters, and other new media types.

Following Wikileaks, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) pushed for a much narrower definition that, most troublingly, would not cover anyone "whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity's work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization." In other words (they hope): Wikileaks.

But, the new bill, while adopting the crabbed Feinstein definition, also has a safety valve that may, depending on how it's implemented, end up being quite positive. It would allow a judge discretion to expand the scope of the act to anyone if the judge determines it "would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities."

[rhett o rick]

25. Authoritarians dont have a clue as to what "thoughtful discussion" is.

"Most clueless post of the day" Is that what you think is the initiation of "thoughtful discussion"? Rhetorical question.

Authoritarians can only throw insults and ridicule like with Sid's "rofl" emoticon.

Are you supporting this bill?

[geek tragedy]

27. Hell yes I support this bill.

DiFi did her best to weaken it, but it's definitely a positive development.

[rhett o rick]

33. So why dont you provide a "thoughtful discussion"? I love thoughtful

discussions but they dont ofter happen here because some are too busy using ridicule to shut down arguments.

[geek tragedy]

37. I've been trying. I've pointed out that if you're going to extend to journalists

a legal privilege much like we've extended to attorneys, clergy, and medical doctors, you need to define who is and who isn't eligible to claim that privilege.

People then say "it defines journalist therefore it's fascist." Which would make the state shield laws protecting reporters across this country unconstitutional.

Which is absurd.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

76. Here's an adequate definition: anyone who reports or publishes.

That includes bloggers, citizen journalists, posters on discussion forums, internet hosting companies, internet service providers and others.

The definition (if there needs to be such a definition beyond "citizen&quot needs to be as broad as possible.

This is the meat of the matter: If law enforcement's only information that a person possesses the name or contacts an anonymous source who may or may not have committed a crime, ... if they know that only because the person published an article or posted a comment or blogged, ... then they don't have a right to subpoena them or get their phone records.

If you make a post on Facebook that you were at a party where people smoked blunts, should you be subpoenaed?

If you post an article about the culture of blunts parties and it reveals that you have been to one or more, should you be subpoenaed and investigated?

If you post the article in a DU Journal entry should you be any less protected than a FOX News reporter?

If FOX News republishes your article on their site, does that give you a shield that you didn't have when it was merely published on DU?

How much salary constitutes "employment"? $50K, one dollar?

[geek tragedy]

77. So, anyone with a Facebook account should never have to cooperate

with any kind of subpoena?

Kewl!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

79. No, that is not the logical conclusion and you know it. When you make a logical fallacy

When you make a logical fallacy, it is not convincing to any thinking reader.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

80. But of course, you don't address the examples or work through the details. So be it. nt

[geek tragedy]

81. You realize by your standard no one would have been

prosecuted for the Steubenville rape case, right?

Hey, if you want to rape or murder someone, just have your accomplices post it on Facebook and they can't testify against you.

Awesome!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

86. No, not the standard at all. Not what the law is about. That's not what it shields.

You are very quickly losing credibility the less and less "thoughtful" your posts become.

The law shields naming names. Since in your example, the names would be named, logically the shield does not apply.

[geek tragedy]

87. The law prevents them from testifying or cooperating with subpoenas

or investigations, so that they don't have to provide information at all.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

88. Nope. Another illogical false understanding of the proposed law.

It only protects them from providing sources names or their phone and internet records that they may have used to contact them.

[geek tragedy]

89. wrong again

it includes:

"any records, contents of a communications, documents, or information that a covered journalist obtained or created as part of engaging in journalism and upon a promise or agreemetn that such records, contents of a communication, documents, or information would be confidential."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

90. Exactly, but not wrong. The law does not cover the article and it is not a free pass.

No shield law (and there are many state laws with similar wording) has been used to give criminals free passes just because their names and stories were published.

Your conclusion does not logically follow.

Even if it did, why should licensed approved official journalists have a special privilege to in your words open a "Facebook account" and "never have to cooperate with the law"? Or even "never have to cooperate with the law" (your own words) simply because they are 'journalists'? You would deny bloggers that privilege (because that's how you wrote it) but not 'journalists'.

[geek tragedy]

91. Journalists would not have absolute privilege, only that connected with

their professional activities.

Some bloggers are journalists, others aren't. It depends on the content they blog.

Some guy who posts porn on reddit isn't a journalist. Someone like Josh Marshall, or Glenn Greenwald, would qualify.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

93. You claimed they would in post 77 and 81.

You wrote:

So, anyone with a Facebook account should never have to cooperate with any kind of subpoena? Kewl!

That was in post #77 when the only question on the table at that point in the subthread was whether bloggers (and other 'non-journalists') would be shielded.

You think that journalists should be shielded from ever "have to cooperate with any kind of subpoena", but not bloggers.

You realize by your standard no one would have been prosecuted for the Steubenville rape case, right? Hey, if you want to rape or murder someone, just have your accomplices post it on Facebook and they can't testify against you. Awesome!

You wrote that in post #81 where again the question was not what the law shielded but who it shielded. You think that criminals should be shielded by "journalists'" privileges, but not by bloggers.

You also made a fundamental confusion by claiming the law would shield the perpetrators just because somebody (a 'journalist') published it ("post it&quot . The law is not about shielding criminals. It is about shield the people who write and report.

The debate is about who it should shield, but you keep throwing up logical fallacies, purposeful misrepresentation of what people write and straw man targets.

Just stop it.

[geek tragedy]

99. So, if the Steubenville guys had said "this is like journalism and everything dudes, so

we promise not to cooperate with any criminal investigations" all good?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

100. Strawman argument. It does not apply for reasons I've already given. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

82. You pose wanting a "thoughtful discussion" and this is the best you can come up with. We see. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

140. It isn't restricted to citizens. Any person publishing in any media.

[Eddie Haskell]

45. Read the Constitution.

[geek tragedy]

47. I did several times while getting my law degree.

Read this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

[Eddie Haskell]

52. there's your problem, geek

[geek tragedy]

53. Yep, I understand the constitution, whereas you imagine it to be something it is not nt

[sabrina 1]

110. Then you surely have read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. But I thought you disapproved

of the Constitution due to the personal lives of some of the authors?

Forgive me if I find it difficult to understand why someone who has stated their disapproval of the Constitution should be taken seriously when they claim to understand it.

The 1st Amendment is pretty clear and ALL the protection needed for the freedom of the press required to continue to claim that we are actually a democratic society, the 'land of the free'.

[geek tragedy]

111. The constitution is the law, not the word of God.

Parts of the constitution work, others don't, but it's not sacred. It doesn't mean everything we want it to mean.

No one has explained with any degree of coherence why protecting journalists from government harassment would restrict their freedom.

[sabrina 1]

114. Which parts of the Constitution don't work?

It was written with the knowledge that as the country grew there would be a need to add and detract from it. Your wording is problematic, no one here has stated the the Constitution is 'god' or 'sacred' so I have no idea why you included that language in your response.

IF you are a lawyer or went to law school, as you stated, then you must know that the Constitution IS the law of the land, a fluid document, that it has been added to as the need arose, some parts corrected, updated as intended.

So what parts need to be fixed, amended right now?

If that is necessary then there needs to be a debate about it, agreements reached, and amendments added as has always been the case.

To simply decide to ignore it because it is not 'working for me' doesn't comply with any legal premise that I am aware of.

I am presuming you do not agree with the 1st Amendment or don't see how it is all the protection needed to ensure freedom of the press, so let's hear what needs to be changed, added to, taken out.

So far I have not heard anyone who understands the law propose any changes to the 1st Amendment. So until that happens, it IS the protection, the law, that ensures protection of the press.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

121. Until it is amended, it is the law, whether it "works" or not in your opinion.

Government harassment restricts journalists' and bloggers' and commentators' and analysts' freedom in the same way that government harassment restricts citizens' freedom.

If you think that it is not harassment when government investigation forces you to pay to sue in Federal court to convince a judge to extend the shield to you even though you aren't actually paid a salary of some unspecified amount by a mega-media corporation, then perhaps you would find it soothing.

If you think it is not harassment for a citizen or a blogger to be subpoenaed unnecessarily or that it is a delightful walk in the park that you are eager to indulge in, then there is little hope for discussion with you.

[geek tragedy]

123. The alternative is that they don't sue because they have no right to sue and are forced

to comply.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

130. None of which appears in the three paragraphs of my post and is not applicable to this subthread. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

118. A thoughtful discussion, first and foremost, requires thought.

That is, as you've so amply demonstrated, the end of any potential debate right there.

[geek tragedy]

126. Yes, yes, the post to which I was responding is more your cup of tea--

and intellectual consistency.

Stomp on and attack anyone who disagrees with the DU Purity Rule (in this case, the DU Purity Rule being that ALL TRUE PROGRESSIVES MUST HATE SHIELD LAWS) since anyone who doesn't bow down to the DU Purity Rule is a fascist tool of the 1% TPTB etcetcetc.

[Egalitarian Thug]

132. Thank you for further demonstrating my point. n/t

[Marr]

153. Why are you same few *always* front and center, defending this sort of thing?

If I recall correctly, you're one of the people who dislikes the "authoritarian" label, but here you are, once again, defending authoritarian policy.

[geek tragedy]

156. Shield laws are not authoritarian.

It is the height of ignorance to claim otherwise. I agree with the ACLU--you disagree with them.

You all are on the side of authoritarianism by opposing shield laws,

Your position is reactionary, not progressive.

[woo me with science]

161. Always the same group. And the particularly ludicrous "tell" here

is that the authoritarian crew were the *only* ones defending the government's targeting of Risen about a month ago. Everyone else was outraged at the Justice Department's violation of his constitutional rights. Yet now the authoritarians argue that his targeting is an example of why journalists need Feinstein's special "protection."

The fact is that Risen never should have been hauled into court. And he would NOT have been hauled into court under previous administrations and the previous normal handling of our justice system. This administration's war on whistleblowing and journalists is unprecedented, as the numbers clearly show.

It takes a heaping of gall for corporate Democrats to wage a targeting war on journalists and then *use* that targeting to argue that journalists thus need protection.

Particularly when the "protection" they offer is a law that would....surprise....give themselves the power to decree who is and who is not a journalist.

What a filthy manipulation the whole argument is.


The dishonest corporate tactic of passing "protections" to dismantle the Constitution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705470

[Marr]

163. Excellent point.

I hadn't considered Risen in this context.

[bvar22]

55. X1000

[font size=3]" It needs to be called out, stomped on, and those giving it even a hint of credence shamed and exposed for either their shameful ignorance or complicity with authoritarians and fascists. Then ignored, if a site called "Democratic Underground" cannot muster a PPR.

This garbage needs to be called what it is, and disposed of."[/font]

Thank You.

[beevul]

66. Yup. + 1000

Thank you.

You said it better than I could.

[sibelian]

142. Thank you.

"The truth lies somewhere in the middle..."

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. But if a journalist is 'anyone who says they're one', then you are trying to shut up journalists

Yes, you're not the government, but by saying that their opinion should be "called out, stomped on, and those giving it even a hint of credence shamed and exposed for either their shameful ignorance or complicity with authoritarians and fascists", you're saying that about journalists. And it's pretty bad you're talking about PPRing journalists from DU.

[bobduca]

164. False equivalence (and you know it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

It is achieved by "shifting, imprecise, or tactical (re)definition of a linking term.[1]

You know this because you immediately cede that the poster is not the govt.

[sarisataka]

2. Unless you agree...

a free press should be vetted by the government. To me it seems such a requirement would have a stifling effect on how free the press is.

[Demo_Chris]

4. Apparently so. I, for one, welcome our Police State masters. nt

[gopiscrap]

8. What a bunch of fucking bullshit

this is part of the stuff that makes us no better than the rest of the world. In fact it makes us worst, because we ought to know better.

[muriel_volestrangler]

149. Wow - that's a strong attack on the OP

You really think that woo me with science makes 'us' worse than the rest of the world?

I note that you don't think Jeff Gannon was a journalist: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705947

[jsr]

9. What Country is This?

[randome]

10. Who do you consider to be a journalist?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

28. Who do YOU consider to be a journalist? nm

[randome]

42. It's a pertinent question that I haven't given much thought to.

It seems to me it has to be more than someone saying "I'm a journalist." Otherwise, crime scenes would be ruined on a regular basis. People might gain access to buildings they are not authorized to have access to.

Anyone could harass a celebrity and say, "It's okay. I'm a journalist."

I'm not sure if the definition being bandied about -working for a salary for a news media organization- is the best way to go about it.

But do we really want some basement blogger to have access to crime scenes, be able to invoke shield laws to refuse to testify, etc?

I don't think it's an easy question to answer.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Eddie Haskell]

50. Anyone who seeks to report the truth.

Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne Sawyer are animated cartoons that read press releases from the White House. Not journalists.

[randome]

57. That just puts off the definition. Anyone can claim to be reporting the truth.

Fox News does so on a regular basis but I don't consider them 'truth-tellers'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

120. They can claim to be telling the truth, like our Corporate Owned media who claimed as they

were instructed to do, that we were going to Iraq due the dire and imminent threat from a country that had zero to do with 9/11, of WMDs aimed directly at us. Mushroom clouds, heading our way.

Should the Corporate Media, claiming to be telling the truth while doing the opposite, be considered journalists?

Otoh, we had Wikileaks, an International, multi-award winning News Org who DID tell the truth, I haven't heard anyone deny the facts they revealed, despite all the rhetoric aimed at them. So, since they WERE telling the truth, should they be considered journalists?

Truth V Lies.

Corporate Media lies

Wikileaks facts.

Which deserve to be called 'journalists'?

[sabrina 1]

115. Who do YOU consider to be a journalist?

[randome]

146. As I said, it's a complicated question.

Shield laws should not routinely be used by anyone. As ProSense, pointed out, Jeff Gannon said he was a journalist but I doubt anyone who remembers him considers that to be the case.

I don't know about Wikileaks. Routinely publishing stolen material is more like a fence instead of a journalist.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[rurallib]

11. Finally, maybe we can discredit Ben Franklin and that Thomas Paine guy

real troublemakers them two were!

[Egalitarian Thug]

136. They were TERRORISTS! Fat King George said so himself, and now we have the exact same type

here today, anxious to trade your freedom for their privilege.

[geek tragedy]

12. No, because that's not being proposed by anyone. Anyone who thinks that's the issue

being debated is completely ignorant.

NO ONE is talking about licensing or issuing official credentials to journalists based on the FFIA.

Your ignorance is not the fault of people who understand the issue.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. It's the thin edge of the wedge and it is a kind of defacto licensing.

Anyone who doesn't meet the definition in the proposed law is not protected in the same way as the officially recognized "journalists" would be.

Many hateful laws had deceptively mild beginnings. Like civil forfeiture, for example, that pushes the theory that civil property has no need for due process regardless of whether it is a drug-smuggling boat or a family farm some third party planted in an abandoned corner.

Like the application of huge $23,000 fines by the RIAA against grandmothers because a sub-teen granddaughter downloaded a few songs.

Like the "voter fraud" bills that end up denying elderly voters the vote because of so many hurdles being placed in their way.

Like trans-vaginal probes and the reality of their application versus the wording of the statute.

Can you imagine the effect of denying protection to whistleblowing bloggers this law would have in the hands of the likes of Governor Walker or Justice Samuel Alito or Bush III?

[Jesus Malverde]

41. Oh you've only been officially credentialed 2 months.

No protections for you...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

43. Your post is meaningless without explanation and expansion. nt

[Jesus Malverde]

49. It's part of the "definition" of who is a journalist and is dumb.

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.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. Right. Thanks for your response. nt

[geek tragedy]

48. Do you realize that just about every state has some kind of law that's very

similar to the federal version being proposed? That journalists support them fiercely?

None of them has lead to fascism as far as I can tell.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

62. Yes, that's the point. The federal law is more restrictive than states laws. And it is Federal.

Only Wyoming has neither shield law nor court precedent.

For example, the California law is broader.

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/californiashieldlaw.pdf

WHO IT PROTECTS

The Shield Law protects a “publisher, editor, reporter,
or other person connected with or employed upon a
newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication,
or by a press association or wire service” and a “radio
or television news reporter or other person connected
with or employed by a radio or television station.”
The Shield Law also likely applies to stringers,
freelancers, and perhaps authors

[geek tragedy]

64. Federal law is broader, since it includes not only those categories but also

anyone else who generates journalism work product, or someone who doesn't fit those categories but still merits protection in a judge's view.

So says the fascist thugs at the ACLU.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/senate-finally-frees-press-kind

[Bernardo de La Paz]

68. I don't think the ACLU are fascist thugs. Sorry that you do.

Just because the ACLU might or might not decide to help a blogger sue for protection doesn't give much comfort to a blogger.

The government has tremendous resources to block a blogger's suit, so large that realistically only mega-corporations would be able to support such suits for protection. But wait! The law hands those mega-corporations a free pass.

[geek tragedy]

70. The ACLU agrees with me and disagrees with you on this bill, so of course

I'm not calling them fascists.

I'm making fun of idiots who say that the supporters of this bill are fascists.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

71. Strawman target. I didn't call them fascists. I didn't call supporters of the bill fascist.

Don't act as if it were otherwise.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

67. Of course "journalists" support the new law. It recognizes them but not their competitors!

Of course "journalists" support the proposed new law. It recognizes them but not their competitors!

Bloggers, commentators, analysts, citizen journalists and others would be cut loose.

The beginning of this Official Recognition at the Federal level reinforces the guild concept of journalism. It raises the barriers to entry.

Their competitors would have to pay to sue to get protection and do so without the financial resources of a mega-corporation behind them.

[Democat]

148. This is an emotional conspiracy theory type issue for many people

You are arguing with facts. I doubt that will work.

[Eddie Haskell]

51. Your ignorance is not the fault of people who understand the issue.

I agree.

[Skidmore]

13. Undoubtedly this will be challenged in the courts.

[geek tragedy]

21. Why would a journalist shield law be challenged in court? nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. When it is a shield limitation law, not a shield extension law.

The proposed law is a way for politicians to cut bloggers and citizen journalists and others out from "harassing" them with the facts and pointed commentary.

It's the thin edge of the wedge.

[geek tragedy]

30. That is factually false. Currently NO ONE benefits from that shield.

The bill in question calls for judges to grant shield protection to anyone they think is appropriate where it would improve protect newsgathering, as well as anyone with a substantial record of generating journalistic work product.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. Great. Now bloggers and "semi-official" journalists would have to pay to sue for protection.

If the shield law is so good, extend it to everyone.

Oh, yeah, we already have a constitution that covers everyone.

If the shield law is so good, then it shouldn't require pre-authorization via a judge and it shouldn't require a salary as a determinant and it shouldn't require a determination that the media company is sufficiently large to be a 'real' media outlet.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. I responded to the original version of your post, before you edited it so substantially. nt

[Junkdrawer]

15. +1000 for the OP [phone] for "Please don't feed the trolls."....

Well played.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. I'm tired of the debates. I'm tired of the compromise. It is time to fight for liberal values.

[sabrina 1]

19. Well, should we be surprised? We have been having 'serious' discussions on what is the

approved way to kill children, White Phospherous (approved) or Sarin (not approved).

What's a little discussion on Government Control over Journalism?

[geek tragedy]

20. The OP is a lie. What's being debated is a shield law to protect journalists.

In no way is the law in question controlling or regulating journalists. It's protecting them by allowing them to refuse to testify against sources.

[rhett o rick]

31. That is interesting. Do you have links? nm

[geek tragedy]

32. Yes:

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-statement-shield-bill

Actual text:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/mediashield/S987AsReported091313ALB13770.pdf

[rhett o rick]

36. Thank you. This is a good start. I havent made up my mind on this and am willing to

listen to both sides.

[geek tragedy]

38. How . . . reasonable of you nt

[rhett o rick]

39. You just cant be decent can you? I was serious, but I find that those that have a weak argument

usually resort to ridicule. Seems like you just can help yourself.

[geek tragedy]

46. Apologies, wasn't meant as a slight to you. Was serious--you are being reasonable.

Not a knock against you at all. Apologies if the clumsy execution rubbed you the wrong way.

You're being reasonable, which is something a lot of people aren't doing.

Cheers

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. Links in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Flow_of_Information_Act

[Eddie Haskell]

54. Yes, why not let the politicians decide ...

Look at the job they've done on science.

[Autumn]

24. Who gets to have this serious "debates" ?

Congress and the Senate? That's a joke.

[Junkdrawer]

29. "Camel's nose under the tent" thing...

Trying to codify the distinction between "approved news" (read propaganda) and subversion.

If it passes, expect more legislation to expand the "privileges" and "punishments" for each.

[questionseverything]

56. bingo

i get a kick out of current admin asking for a strong shield law to protect reporters when they(reporters) need protected from current admin

[questionseverything]

65. gotta love opednews

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Barrett-Brown-s-Judge--A-by-JillSimpson-JimMar-Anonymous_Anonymous-Sources_Barrett-Brown_Dana-Jill-Simpson-130919-157.html

This article by Jill Simpson and Jim March reveals serious conflicts of interest in Judge Sam Lindsay's appointment as the judge in the criminal case against Barrett Brown. Judge Lindsay has documented ties to Hunton and Williams, a law firm that was under investigation by Barrett Brown's "Project PM". Judge Lindsay also has close connections to large oil companies plus current and former top agents of the FBI. The nature of these connections has never before been documented and needs to be brought to the attention of Brown's lawyers and the mainstream media as Brown risks being sentenced to 105 years by this very judge.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

69. Is opednews.com an approved organization? Are Simpson and March paid a salary?

If opednews is approved AND Simpson & March are paid salaries, have they received salaries for long enough to qualify?

Can the blog or the writers afford to sue for protection before a judge?

[questionseverything]

74. non,no,no & no

that is my point...these 2 independent investigators are some of the only peops getting to the bottom of this travesty of justice and they would not be covered


the current admin asking for sheild laws when it is his admin doing the authoritarian crap is mind boogling also

[geek tragedy]

84. They would be covered. Read the bill the committee reported out nt

[bvar22]

59. In a nutshell,

that is the way it looks to me too.
In other words, [font size=3]Government Approved "Journalism".

[woo me with science]

151. +1

Exactly.

[geek tragedy]

60. Fascist ACLU: FFIA "on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government

transparency."

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/senate-finally-frees-press-kind

[cthulu2016]

73. OMG. Can you get any more DISHONEST??

You know full well the ACLU does NOT favor the Feinstein amendment that is the topic of the OP.

[geek tragedy]

75. The Feinstein amendment got incorporated into the bill the ACLU is endorsing there.

Moreover, you were denouncing ALL journalist shield laws as facially unconstitutional since they define journalists.

The bill defines journalists, and the ACLU still supports it.

[cthulu2016]

83. Your intent was to be dishonest. You succeeded in that.

You sought to promulgate a false impression in the reader's mind, knowing it was false.

Seeking to deceive people is a grotesque moral failing.

What do you want? A medal?

[geek tragedy]

85. Lashing out at me doesn't redeem this post of yours.

Sorry you chose to take the wrong side of a press freedom debate, opposite the ACLU, but that's not my fault.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

94. Your failure to address the issue is unconvincing (opposition of ACLU to Feinstein clause). nt

[geek tragedy]

98. The ACLU supports the version that passed committee. They didn't like Feinstein's efforts nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

144. Are you this fast and loose with facts in your presumed law practice?

I've seen you spamming about 8 different threads with this mutually-exclusive construct of yours. Looks to me like this is where it all fell apart for you, thanks to the efforts of a couple of posters.

[geek tragedy]

150. Nothing I said is close to untrue.

Just some easily confused and hyper emotional people failing to understand the issue.

[bvar22]

155. Signed, sealed, and delivered. Thank You, DisgustipatedinCA!

[woo me with science]

162. Well said.

[woo me with science]

143. Dishonesty.

It's how the propaganda rolls.

Thank you for calling it out.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

95. Dunno about "more", but see the straw men & deliberate misrepresentations tragedy uses upthread. nt

[Cerridwen]

103. "Damning with faint praise."

Let me first include the definition of the phrase in my subject line:

damn someone or something with faint praise
Fig. to criticize someone or something indirectly by not praising enthusiastically.

damn somebody/something with faint praise
to praise something or someone in such a weak way that it is obvious you do not really admire them.

damn (somebody/something) with faint praise
to show only slight approval for someone or something.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/damn+with+faint+praise

Secondly what each organization, the ACLU and the RCFP both said in their articles you linked was that the "shield law" in question is better than the alternative ("on balance&quot . In addition, both organizations said the alternative was horrific and that this was a "good first step."

"Better than the alternative," in spite of what some may think, does not translate to an endorsement. A brutal and simplistic but succinct example might be; "on balance, given a choice between cancer and death; I choose cancer." "Better than the alternative."

[geek tragedy]

104. Let's look at the language the ACLU actually used.

Despite some flaws, it's on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government transparency. ...

...

So, how is the bill from a civil liberties point of view? The truth is, despite several unnecessary provisions that weaken its protections, it can't be anything but positive. The status quo is unacceptable. Championed by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the bill has been harried by both Democrats and Republicans on several fronts. That it lives to fight another vote is a very good thing.

...

All in all, this is a good first step toward a more informed populace in America.

"The alternative" is not pass it. They are saying that it is much better to pass this bill than to defeat it. That is an endorsement.


The ACLU and RCFP are crystal-clear where they stand on this bill--they think it should pass. The majorkity of DU disagrees with them, and prefers "the alternative."

[Cerridwen]

108. Wanna cherry pick? Done.

Admittedly, it's far from perfect. It also threatens to open the door to a First Amendment advocate's worst nightmare—inconsistent and possibly selective application of an overly vague rule. But, it's a far sight better than the original anti-Wikileaks definition.

We've also expressed serious concern with several carve-outs in the bill. In particular, the national security exception is fundamentally unnecessary and would likely and inappropriately exempt the AP and James Risen subpoenas, as well as the James Rosen case. But, the bill maintains protections for criminal defendants, allowing them to pierce the privilege when necessary to protect due process. Advocates can also continue to push for improvements as it moves through the Senate and, hopefully, the House.

All in all, this is a good first step toward a more informed populace in America.

That last sentence? Read the definition of "damning with faint praise."

As a whole, "it's a far sight better than the original anti-Wikileaks definition".

[geek tragedy]

109. If a newspaper says "vote for Candidate X over Candidate Y" that is an endorsement.

Here, the ACLU is saying "pass this bill."

To put it another way, the ACLU is saying that DU's preferred outcome (defeating the bill) is:

unacceptable

So, if you prefer, we can say that more than the ACLU being fans of this bill, the ACLU repudiates in strong terms DU's preferred outcome of the bill being defeated.

[Cerridwen]

112. The ACLU is saying "pass this bill" rather than the other version.

I see you don't understand about the choice that is no choice.

And now I'm done with you because I am self editing the crap out of my posts to not say what I think about you and your mental acuity much less what I think of your reading comprehension skills.

[geek tragedy]

122. No, the ACLU is saying that THE STATUS QUO is unacceptable.

If you vote against this bill, that's a vote for the status quo.

If you're going to assert your superior intellect and reading comprehension, you should probably write better.

And now I'm done with you because I am self editing the crap out of my posts to not say what I think about you and your mental acuity much less what I think of your reading comprehension skills.

You could have said "I am editing the crap out of my posts" or "I am self-editing too much" but "self-editing the crap out of my posts" is not only redundant (if you're editing your own posts, you're self-editing), but also seems to suggest that you view yourself as crap.

Also, the "I want to call you stupid but I'm too polite" gimmick is trite even with clean execution (you have a thing with redundance--insulting either mental acuity or reading comprehension would have sufficed, citing both is just pompous).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

135. Again, your fallacy that this bill & status quo are the only two alternatives.

False dichotomy.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

124. ACLU saying "modify the bill before passing it". Specifically object to the journalist definition.nt

[Cerridwen]

134. Thank you.

The fact that there is even a bill in place and to be debated makes me want to puke.

faux news can get a legal ruling that it's okay to lie and call it news.

Now some members of the congress want to define journalist with not a passing reference to facts and reporting but some arbitrary definition of "journalist."

[madinmaryland]

61. Are "journos" considered real journalists?

[Aerows]

97. Why are we trying to regulate things like this?

We get nothing but a less free press with this. I agree completely - this shouldn't even have been brought up, much less "seriously" debated.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

101. Right, but the existence of a law passed out of committee kind of forces our hands. nt

[Posteritatis]

159. Because people pushing it *want* a less free press. (nt)

[Aerows]

160. Clearly

Obviously things that aren't regulated shouldn't be allowed to be public knowledge.

[Swede Atlanta]

102. I will be calling them on Monday to say No, No and HELL No.....

This is just another way in which the Democrats are complicit in the creation of Big Brother. We need MORE openness and more transparency given what we have learned about the NSA and recently that the FBI considers anyone who has EVER expressed a view of conspiracy on 9/11 as potential terrorists.

The Constitution is not up to Congressional interpretation. This is for the Court to decide but of course this Court would side with anything remotely Hitlerian.

[woo me with science]

152. +1 We all need to do this.

I can't tell you how sick I am of having to fight like this. I thought we would get a respite from this constant fighting for our lives starting in 2008.

[ProSense]

125. "Trolls" reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013

Reporters Committee statement on shield bill

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013.

Our statement: We are pleased to see that the Judiciary Committee passed this bill. It goes a long way toward ensuring that reporters will be protected from subpoenas for their confidential information and sources. It's not a perfect bill, but it tries to cover a broad array of reporters. While it is not as inclusive as we would like, it is not nearly as limited in that area as previous attempts at a federal shield law have been. It still is important that we work with Congress and the administration to make sure journalists' records are not scooped up in broad surveillance programs, and that Justice Department attorneys respect the rights of reporters, but today's action is a significant step in the right direction.

<...>

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-statement-shield-bill

Senate Finally Frees the Press (Kind Of)

By Gabe Rottman

The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday took up a federal reporter shield law for the second time this year, after getting caught up back in July over the definition of a journalist. This time around, however, the committee passed it, marking the first time a shield bill has moved since 2009, when momentum behind a very similar measure died an unfortunate death after the Wikileaks affair. Despite some flaws, it's on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government transparency.

The recent revelations that the Justice Department has aggressively investigated members of the news media in several high-profile leaks inquiries have breathed new life into the measure, which would add federal protections on top of the 49 states that already "shield" reporters from having to disclose their sources and work product.

<...>

The biggest change between this bill and S. 448, which died in 2009, is who's covered by the legislation. In 2009 (prior to Wikileaks being a thing), the bill had a narrow-ish definition of journalist, skewed to the legacy media, but still possibly inclusive of professional bloggers, citizen reporters, and other new media types.

<...>

But, the new bill, while adopting the crabbed Feinstein definition, also has a safety valve that may, depending on how it's implemented, end up being quite positive. It would allow a judge discretion to expand the scope of the act to anyone if the judge determines it "would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities."

- more -

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/senate-finally-frees-press-kind

From the President: Contact your senators now!

It’s time to raise the shield. Now! Congress is considering the Free Flow of Information Act — a federal shield law. We need to let our U.S. senators know how important this legislation is for society. You can help! Email or call your two senators (info below), and then let us know that you did. We will update the shield map and continue to spread the word. Act now!

- more -

http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw.asp

By David Greene

Senate Revises Media Shield Law for the Better, But It’s Still Imperfect

The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a new version of the proposed media shield law, forging a compromise on who should be protected from having to reveal their journalistic sources in court. The amended bill, which is now clear to go for a full vote in the Senate, avoids defining who is a “journalist.” Moreover, it would allow judges the discretion to apply the protection to any person who, in the interest of justice, should be considered a practicing journalist.

The bill is far from perfect, but the new compromise opens the door to non-mainstream journalists, as well as new forms of journalism that may develop in the future.

The Long and Winding Road to a Federal Reporters’ Privilege Statute

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (S. 987) would create protection for newsgatherers who are served with subpoenas or other court orders seeking unpublished information obtained during the course of their newsgathering.

Currently, 40 states have shield laws that provide protections against subpoenas and orders issued by state courts, but there is no statutory protection against subpoenas and other orders issued by federal courts. Instead, newsgatherers have had to rely on a “reporters privilege,” interpreted by many federal courts as deriving from the First Amendment. Yet few courts apply it to block grand jury subpoenas, which are especially common, and the vitality of the constitutional privilege as a whole has recently been called into doubt. Indeed, a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply it at all.

There is no question that a federal shield law is needed. However, as with all shield laws, the law must define which persons can claim its protections.

- more -

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

[Egalitarian Thug]

137. A day late and a dollar short.

Surprise!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

138. 1) ACLU support part only. 2) Reporters like guild protection against competitors.

Reporters have no love of citizen journalists and bloggers because they have led to job cuts at newspapers and other media outlets. Reporters are happy to have some extra protection especially if it means less protection for their competitors.

The bill and the status quo are not the only alternatives. There is much that the ACLU does not like about the bill.

[bobduca]

165. But you must admit those are some very nice facts

that it picked to highlight... Public Relations is hard work. Choosing what not to highlight takes more time than making the blue links!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

166. "it"? What scales up? Your post is so terse it is not pithy but is obscure. nt

[bobduca]

167. Sorry, was too obtuse before coffee

economies of scale help that poster with their talking points.

I had a cherry picking plantation in mind in the first post now please excuse me while i get more coffee.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

168. I still don't understand you any better, but carry on. nt

[bobduca]

171. I'm saying

that depending on where the poster's talking points come from (economies of scale creates them, the poster disavows ever having any personal opinions, preferring emoticons) they either cite or repudiate the ACLU's positions depending on how the administration is affected by the ACLU's position. That is cherry picking, on a mass scale (seeing as the poster's output indicates that it is it's full time job posting here)

[Scuba]

145. Journalism is ....

[woo me with science]

157. "Everything else is public relations."

+1

[kenny blankenship]

169. They're not "trolls", they're minders.

Appointed by our benevolent party patrons. And even though they are few, they are given the run of the place.

[bobduca]

170. just like

du

[woo me with science]

172. You are correct. nt