Federal shield law is practically here...

Looks like they had to put in loopholes because of fears (legit or not) about terrorists hiding behind it, and loopholes always give wiggle room. But otherwise, it looks pretty straightforward. They still want to be able to subpoena phone records and illegal behavior is not covered.

The definition of who is a journalist is incredibly vague. It actually doesn't say that you have to make most of your living as a journalist. It says, "a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain." If I'm a blogger and I have a Yahoo! ad on my page that paid me 5 cents, I could perhaps not all that unreasonably argue that it is "substantial financial gain." That definition seems way too vague. What exactly constitutes a substantial portion of someone's livelihood? $100 might be very substantial to a guy who works at McDonald's and blogs in his spare time, but might be unsubstantial to a partner in a law firm who also writes a column for the local weekly newspaper.

The Senate version of the bill was way more straightforward (still has the provisions regarding terrorism and phone records and reporters who do something illegal), but it defines a journalist in a much more logical way, without any of that vague "financial gain" language: "The term `journalism' means 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."

Is there a chance the final law can still use the Senate's language? Is it worth writing to a Congressman and Senator about it?