Federal shield law is practically here...

[Fenian_Bastard]

It really does get the government into the business of defining who we are. People who would never swing for the moment to the concept of licensing journos seem willing to embrace this uncritically, even though it is a de facto license for one important part of our function.

 

[jgmacg]

This is a bad law. Journalists shouldn't have protections that normal American's don't have.

Read the First ****ing Amendment.

And the Ninth.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Legislators (and unfortunately judges who shouldn't be in the business of doing this) have strained much harder to define things that were far more undefinable than who is a journalist. It's not that hard. If you gather and report news for a living you are a journalist. They can feel free to write that into the bill and await my invoice for the 30 seconds of time it took me.

The reason this sort of legislation has been talked about for more than 30 years--since Branzburg vs. Hayes--but has never been seen through, is that until recently, it wasn't that much of an issue. Reporters weren't under assault from the Justice Department. The irony is that the Bush administration--which is threatening a veto--made this legislation a slam-dunk with the number of attempts to get Federal judges to twist reporters arms with the threat of sending innocent people to jail for reporting info to the public (the horror of it!).

A strong fourth estate is more necessary than ever because of how close we have been creeping toward Nixontonian ways. This legislation can just strengthen our democracy and increase the chances of transparency by allowing the public to get the truth instead of government-scrubbed propaganda designed to misinform, or worse, to cover up malfeasance.

 

[Dave Kindred]

It really does get the government into the business of defining who we are. People who would never swing for the moment to the concept of licensing journos seem willing to embrace this uncritically, even though it is a de facto license for one important part of our function.

I haven't read the bill, only the Post's report of it. But seems to me the only definition in play is whether you make a significant part of your living as a "journalist." Not much of a threat there, especially with the judicial system rather than the executive making the call.

 

[jgmacg]

It really does get the government into the business of defining who we are. People who would never swing for the moment to the concept of licensing journos seem willing to embrace this uncritically, even though it is a de facto license for one important part of our function.

I haven't read the bill, only the Post's report of it. But seems to me the only definition in play is whether you make a significant part of your living as a "journalist." Not much of a threat there, especially with the judicial system rather than the executive making the call.

Given this definition of "journalist", would the new law have helped Joshua Wolf? I'm not so sure.

Wolf served 226 days in prison at the Federal Correctional Institution, Dublin, California, longer than any other journalist in U.S. history has served for protecting source material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf

 

[Dave Kindred]

It really does get the government into the business of defining who we are. People who would never swing for the moment to the concept of licensing journos seem willing to embrace this uncritically, even though it is a de facto license for one important part of our function.

I haven't read the bill, only the Post's report of it. But seems to me the only definition in play is whether you make a significant part of your living as a "journalist." Not much of a threat there, especially with the judicial system rather than the executive making the call.

Given this definition of "journalist", would the new law have helped Joshua Wolf? I'm not so sure.

Wolf served 226 days in prison at the Federal Correctional Institution, Dublin, California, longer than any other journalist in U.S. history has served for protecting source material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf

Yep, slippery slope there....

 

[goalmouth]

I lift a glass to the Chronicle guys, Fainaru-Wada and Williams, who did what they needed to do and did it without the protection this bill will give us from now on...
*****
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101601298.html?hpid=sec-politics

Got any leftover T-shirts from the rally?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

It really does get the government into the business of defining who we are. People who would never swing for the moment to the concept of licensing journos seem willing to embrace this uncritically, even though it is a de facto license for one important part of our function.

I haven't read the bill, only the Post's report of it. But seems to me the only definition in play is whether you make a significant part of your living as a "journalist." Not much of a threat there, especially with the judicial system rather than the executive making the call.

Given this definition of "journalist", would the new law have helped Joshua Wolf? I'm not so sure.

Wolf served 226 days in prison at the Federal Correctional Institution, Dublin, California, longer than any other journalist in U.S. history has served for protecting source material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf

Considering that the judiciary has been "making the calls" that people seem to believe make this law necessary in the first place, I'm not as sanguine as Dave about how they'll operate in this area in the future. And Ragu, what you wrote is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with the law under discussion, which presumes, essentially, to set up a means-test as to who is a journalist and who isn't. Anyone who gathers and disseminates news? Wunderbar. That would cover everyone from Maureen Dowd to BLOGS! Unfortunately, it isn't what the law says. It says that, to be covered, you have to "make a significant part of your living as a journalist." Jmac's point about Joshua Wolf is very well-taken.
And the Nixon argument in the context of the current situation is ill-founded. What we have now is a press that operates as a transmission belt for administration propaganda and administration slander, all disseminated anonymously, and then demands the protection of the law when called to account for what is quite obviously professional malpractice. That is what the Libby case -- and Judy Miller's jail time -- was all about.

 

[21]

But on balance: Is it not worth protecting legitimate journalists, at the occasional cost of accidentally protecting those who might not completely 'qualify'? If you're not going to create some perfect legislation, is it better to err on the side of protecting those who actually deserve it?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

But on balance: Is it not worth protecting legitimate journalists, at the occasional cost of accidentally protecting those who might not completely 'qualify'? If you're not going to create some perfect legislation, is it better to err on the side of protecting those who actually deserve it?

But that's not what the law does.
It defines, quite rigidly and by a bizarre standard, who "qualifies" and who doesn't.
Now, if you want to argue good-with-the-bad as regards whistleblowing vs. anonymous slander, that's a different topic. I may be misreading your post here, but I think you're talking about who qualifies under the law and not what kind of information does. Am I wrong?

 

[The Big Ragu]

I thought she was just asking if there are people who believe that because the law doesn't protect bloggers, there should be no shield law at all.

 

[fishwrapper]

I believe if we -- as an industry -- weren't struggling for survival, this topic would be the greatest facing us. Other than a couple of posts, I respect the civility of the discussion.
The Shield Law, whatever it's metamorphose -- will affect journalists long after we put down the keyboard.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I only pick up my keyboard to slam it against the wall when my computer goes down.

 

[fishwrapper]

Likewise, I use it only to type "**** me."

 

[zeke12]

Why would the test be in the form of how much of your living you made via journalism?

Why wouldn't the test be whether you were in the act of gathering news for dissemination during the case at hand?

In other words, in order to invoke the shield law, you had to be doing whatever you were doing with the intention of compiling a story for publication.

That focuses on what people were actually doing and doesn't create a separate "class" of people.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

As interesting as this discussion is, it's moot.
President Stupid's going to veto, and there's no chance of an override.

 

[21]

But on balance: Is it not worth protecting legitimate journalists, at the occasional cost of accidentally protecting those who might not completely 'qualify'? If you're not going to create some perfect legislation, is it better to err on the side of protecting those who actually deserve it?

But that's not what the law does.
It defines, quite rigidly and by a bizarre standard, who "qualifies" and who doesn't.
Now, if you want to argue good-with-the-bad as regards whistleblowing vs. anonymous slander, that's a different topic. I may be misreading your post here, but I think you're talking about who qualifies under the law and not what kind of information does. Am I wrong?

I haven't seen the language of the legislation, so I'm not really sure what the real issues are. But I don't think you can protect the 'who' without the 'what.'

My point, though, was that in the absence of a perfectly drafted law, I'd rather see protection for deserving journalists (with accidental umbrella coverage for those who might cram themselves under the umbrella) than none at all.

And I'm assuming that any law would be specific as to who qualifies for protection. Anyone have a copy of the actual language?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Dave posted the most relevant section a while back -- the part about "deriving most of your income" from journalism, which I maintain is a freaking weird-ass standard.

 

[21]

Dave posted the most relevant section a while back -- the part about "deriving most of your income" from journalism, which I maintain is a freaking weird-ass standard.

It's absurd, I agree. What if you benefit from investments that pay you more than your salary? Alimony? Death benefits? Lottery? There must be something more to it than that. Need to see the law.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I found different versions on the House site, but I didn't want to post one and find out it was not the version that passed.