If you were President, would you Veto

[cthulu2016]

the FFIA because of the language of the Feinstein amendment (setting the government definition of journalist for the purpose of some provisions of the law)?

I will not participate in the discussion here. Just give my answer and leave it to others to offer their views.

I would veto it, and say, "My objection is X and could be fixed by Y." That veto would not mean that there is no good in it. It would mean that if Congress wants it to become law (if it got to my desk it is a given that Congress does) they can amend it and re-pass it and I'll sign it. Easy. And precisely how the system is supposed to work.

The President has the Constitutional power to say, "This provision sucks. To gain my signature, take it out." That is normal. The President has an immense implicit constitutional role in legislation. The veto isn't there by accident.

The only scenario in which this would kill the bill is if the Feinstein amendment within the bill is make-or-break... utterly necessary to its passage. Is it? I suggest that it is not.


Discuss.

[ProSense]

1. The misinformation and

ignorance around this debate reminds me of the freak out about the Emergency Broadcast System.

Reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704140

[geek tragedy]

2. No, I agree with the ACLU and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

that the compromise reached in committee makes the bill a positive one.

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

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.

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

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.

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.