Fitz Makes The Case Against A New Shield Law

[Me.]

Shield Law Perils . . .
Bill Would Wreak Havoc on a System That Isn't Broken

By Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Thursday, October 4, 2007; Page A25

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider a "shield law" for journalists that would radically alter the way national security investigations are conducted. Unlike state shield laws, a federal shield law poses unique obstacles to the protection of national security. We must know whether the proposed law squarely addresses a real problem before taking such a significant step.

Let's start from the common premise that a robust and free press and fair and effective law enforcement are both vital to our democracy. Since the Supreme Court ruled 35 years ago that reporters are obligated to comply with grand jury subpoenas, there has been no shortage of whistle-blowers -- from Watergate to Abu Ghraib. And the Justice Department operates under rigorous regulations restricting the issuance of subpoenas to journalists. These regulations, which require balancing the competing public interests in law enforcement and the flow of information to the media, have yielded only a trickle of subpoenas.

Against this background, a compelling case has not been made for jettisoning the legal framework that has guided this process for the past 35 years.

A threshold question lawmakers should ask is whether reporters will obey the law if it is enacted. They should ask because the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press calls for a shield law while urging journalists to defy the law when a court upholds a subpoena for source information. Any shield bill should require that a person seeking its protection first provide the subpoenaed information under seal to the court, to be released only if the court orders the information disclosed.” Cont…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302000.html

[rucky]

1. We need to redefine what "journalism' is.

No journalists on FOX. Limbaugh has defined himself as journalist, commentator, and comedian - whichever is most convenient for him at the time.

If we are going to give special rights and protections to journalists, we need to set clear standards - a legal definition - of what journalism actually is. Otherwise political shills can report whatever they want and hide behind shield laws. Novak is a columnist, and his opinions are known through his columns. I would say he's not a journalist.

Judith Miller's political and financial ties disqualify her, and I would say in her case and many others, it should be considered fraud to knowingly print lies.

Special rights, special standards. The media can't have it both ways.

[Me.]

3. In This Topsy Turvy World Of Ours

It is Ted Olson who makes the case for a new law

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302061.html

My point of view is that true whistle blowers should be protected. The problem is how to do and define that now that the system has been corrupted by the BA? Protecting likely felons with the shield law perverts what the law was designed to protect. Miller being a prime example of this.

I think defining journalists these days will require heavy lifting. Was Gannon, with his WH credentials really one? How about blogs like FDL or Josh Marshall who to my mind has done some excellent reporting and without him the attorney firing scandal would have never come to the public eye?

[Tinksrival]

2. OMG !!!

What the hell are they trying to pull now!! I can not keep up.

Love the Fitz!