Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

6

Bloggers butting into federal shield law


From CNET:

Some form of “reporter’s privilege,” either through laws or court decisions, already exists in 49 states and the District of Columbia. This bill would extend that protection to federal cases, shielding anyone engaged in the practice of “journalism”–with a number of exceptions, naturally–from being forced to give up confidential information or provide testimony.

The term “journalism” clearly would sweep up at least some bloggers because the bill defines it thusly: “the regular gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.”

That broad definition still gives some politicians heartburn. At Thursday’s meeting, three members of the Senate committee–Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas)–said they worried about giving protection to bloggers who aren’t generally expected to adhere to the same code of conduct and ethics as professional journalists, according to a Senate aide familiar with the debate. But they didn’t propose any different language at the time, opting instead to work with the bill’s primary sponsors to craft tweaks before the bill hits the Senate floor.

Although it’s unclear how the final language will shake out, it could end up resembling the approach taken by a House of Representatives panel when it backed a similar bill in August. That bill’s authors said they planned to add a condition restricting the reporter’s privilege only to those who derive “financial gain or livelihood” from the practice of journalism. (Granted, it’s relatively easy and inexpensive to slap advertisements on blogs and qualify for the privilege, so some politicians weren’t impressed by that amendment.)

It’s still not clear whether the bills will become law, or how desirable enactment is.  From Wendy Hoke, on former special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s being against the federal shield:

He cites a number of impediments created by the bill, including the handcuffing of national security investigations, the delay (measured in years) of such investigations, but most important, he cites the perils of defining journalism. Ding! Ding! Ding! Will someone please wake up and drink of this brew! It would be swell if some of my fellow journalists would start singing this tune! At the very least, he says, the bill defines journalism so broadly that is also includes criminal organizations who disseminate information. So while it may unintentionally penalize those who function as legitimate independent journalists, it may also reward a slew of people on the other side of the law. The Washington Post editorial board calls this extension of coverage “far-fetched,” but seriously…do we really want to test that?

What should the solution look like?  I’m actually not sure myself.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:08 pm October 6th, 2007 in Media 

Comments

Leave a Reply




"));