Um... do you even know what "the press" is?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Sat Sep 21, 2013, 09:49 PM - Edit history (4)

If a person is going to lecture other people about how the First Amendment is obviously intended to convey rights to working journalists not held by all citizens, a person might be advised to know what the words in the First Amendment mean.

The freedom of expression part of the First Amendment does not make any mention of journalism, and carries within it no implication that the Amendment seeks to create a set of special rights for any speaker based on any qualification or distinction whatsoever.

As you probably recall, the First Amendment talks about the freedom to speak freely, and freedom of the press.

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Do you know what "the press" is?

The fucking PRINTING PRESS. Not "the press" like the WH press corps, or the little card in Clark Kent's hat-band that says "press."

There is no freedom of the press in the Constitution that applies to journalists in preference to novelists, historians, scientists, poets, flat earth theorists, or anyone else who publishes "speech" in its many forms. (Singing, art, drama, movies, LOL Cats. etc..)

On Edit: This post is a frustrated reaction to people who think the First Amendment grants journalists rights that ordinary citizens do not have, like the right to not tell the government who told them some thing they claim some anonymous person told them. The government is free to limit its own powers, and if the government wants to say, "We won't make journalsts reveal their sources," then that is up to the government. It is not, however, a right of journalists. If it was then it would apply to everyone.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Is there something in the news today that prompts this OP, cthulu2016?

I saw another post discussing journalism, but it doesn't mention any news development either.

[cthulu2016]

2. Just the usual.

Lots of folks up in here think "freedom of the press" refers to journalism in particular, rather than to publishing. (Journalism is, of course, a subset of publishing.)

Don't know why. Maybe something they 'et.

[russspeakeasy]

3. Thank you. I needed that..

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Unfortunately, this sort of thing doesn't work very well on...

a discussion board since the targets of this clear message won't hear it without a severe pounding.

Constant screaming, sensory deprivation, and regular beatings might get the message through, but don't bet on it.

[giftedgirl77]

7. or just won't bother to read it or comment on

it because it doesn't fit into their quaint little box.

[Prism]

5. Kind of want a cigarette after reading that. N/t

[sabrina 1]

6. Thank you. It's really amazing to see the defenses here of 'defining'

who is and who is not a journalist.

[cui bono]

9. Wait... people are defending that???

You mean like what DiFi is trying to put forth?

[Jim Lane]

11. I'm defending a proposal that reduces NO ONE's rights and makes life easier for some whistleblowers.

My analysis is here, in another thread.

[woo me with science]

8. Thank you.

Thank you.

[woo me with science]

10. kick

[Jim Lane]

12. I don't see anyone making the argument you refute.

You write, "If a person is going to lecture other people about how the First Amendment is obviously intended to convey rights to working journalists not held by all citizens...."

On the assumption that you're talking about the proposed shield law, the whole point is that the First Amendment does not convey to anyone -- working journalist or anyone else --the right to defy a properly issued subpoena. The First Amendment permits the government to order a journalist or a non-journalist citizen or anyone else to divulge sources, if the subpoena is issued as part of a criminal investigation. The First Amendment also permits the government to jail someone (journalist or not) who defies the subpoena. Such jailings have actually happened on numerous occasions. The practice has been upheld against Constitutional challenge.

There's a widespread body of opinion that the freedom of the press is nevertheless enhanced if journalists can promise confidentiality to their sources. That's why most states have shield laws, which put some restraints on subpoenas of this sort. The problem is that there have to be lines drawn, because subpoenas usually have a valid purpose. The proposed bill defines "covered person" as part of that line-drawing process at the federal level.

You're right that there's no First Amendment distinction between journalists and non-journalists. All have the same First Amendment rights. The bill would confer additional rights (going beyond what the First Amendment requires) on certain covered persons without reducing anyone else's rights.

[starroute]

13. It's not clear to me that *anyone* knows what "the press" is

I've just been doing some googling, and I don't find anything -- either in Supreme Court cases or in legal commentary -- that actually attempts to define "the press."

Most freedom of the press cases have involved either prior restraint or "seditious libel," and both of those seem to turn on the act of publishing, of putting something in print.

There are also arguments about whether or not the press gets special privileges (like not revealing the names of sources) over and above what ordinary citizens enjoy under the freedom of speech.

It strikes me that there's a great deal of muddle and a lot of uncertain legal territory here. On one hand, if you define the press in terms of the power to publish information for widespread distribution (as opposed to just ranting on street corners), then yes, the internet does make publishers of all of us. And certainly someone like Glenn Greenwald or a host of bloggers are indistinguishable from someone like the radical pamphlet-writer Tom Paine.

But on the other hand, the internet forces the constitutional scholars to figure out the ticklish matter of whether the first amendment really does -- or should be taken to -- grant special privileges and immunities to anyone acting in the capacity of a journalist. That's going to be quite a sideshow. Meanwhile, trying to skirt the issue by defining certain credentialed individuals as journalists and others not appears to violate both the Constitution and American norms of fairness.

[WillyT]

14. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[ProSense]

15. "There is no freedom of the press in the Constitution that applies to journalists..."

"There is no freedom of the press in the Constitution that applies to journalists in preference to novelists, historians, scientists, poets, flat earth theorists, or anyone else who publishes 'speech' in its many forms. (Singing, art, drama, movies, LOL Cats. etc..)"

Right there are no protections for journalists in the Constitution. There is no definition of a journalist in the Constitution. The funny thing about this debate is that some believe that no protection is best. The fact is that no protection is exactly what applies to every citizen.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

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.

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

The First Amendment protects free speech for all, meaning you can say and print anything.

The shield law adds privilege and protection for the practice of journalism. It's similar to licensing for other professions. You can't simply claim to be a doctor or a lawyer and go out and practice medicine or law, respectively.

The law has nothing to do with limiting free speech, impeding the press or preventing anyone from claiming to be a journalist. What it does is determine who qualifies as a "protected" journalist, and it doesn't automatically exclude anyone.

From EFF:

<...>

First, the bill defines “covered journalist” instead of “journalist.” Although this may seem purely cosmetic, it is a significant substantive improvement. The bill now does not purport to have the federal government define who is a “journalist” or “journalism” for all purposes, but only the subset of journalists covered by the shield.

Second and perhaps most importantly, in addition to protecting “covered journalists,” the bill also contains a “Judicial Discretion” provision, whereby the judge is empowered to extend the shield law’s protection to any person if:

on the specific facts contained in the record, the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case.

The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. It provides an avenue for non-mainstream and citizen journalists to demonstrate that they are deserving of the shield, even if they otherwise fall outside the law’s strict definition of “covered journalist.” Thus, those journalists who may not have been covered by the 2009 law, such as first–time freelancers or self-publishers who cannot prove a connection to an “entity,” are not automatically excluded. The provision is not perfect—the “legitimate news-gathering” language is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow—but it constitutes a vast improvement over the past attempts that we have criticized.

Third, the newly approved definition drops the requirement that the journalist be a “salaried” employee.

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