Federal shield law is practically here...

[Dave Kindred]

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

 

[Chi City 81]

The telling part of the story:

President Bush threatened to veto the bill, saying the protections it would afford "could severely frustrate -- and in some cases completely eviscerate -- the federal government's ability to investigate acts of terrorism and other threats to national security."

 

[jgmacg]

Here's hoping that if it becomes law, we use it wisely.

 

[Dave Kindred]

Doc, from the news story, I think this is the answer to the national-security argument....

....
"The bill would protect news reporters, under most circumstances, from being legally compelled to reveal sources who have requested confidentiality. The protections would apply only to people who earn a significant portion of their livelihoods as journalists. They would not apply in criminal investigations or prosecutions of leaks of classified information that significantly harm national security, unless a judge ruled that the public interest outweighs those concerns."

 

[Chi City 81]

I'm just amazed Bush knows what eviscerate means. And I agree with you, Dave, but I still could see Bush using this as an excuse to veto.

 

[zeke12]

Whoever reminded Shrub he had veto power six years into his term should be summarily hog tied and horse whipped.

 

[Dave Kindred]

I'm just amazed Bush knows what eviscerate means. And I agree with you, Dave, but I still could see Bush using this as an excuse to veto.

Yeah, and we still have the Senate to vote on it....though the House vote would seem to demand similar approval over there....and then? wouldn't it be great fun of a sadistic kind to see the lamest of ducks try to sustain his veto of a bill that was passed 12-1 in the House?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Here's hoping that if it becomes law, we use it wisely.

Judy Miller, Scooter Libby, and I all look forward to the passage of the Complicity In Dirty Tricks And Runaway Prosecutions Protection Act of 2007.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

My impression was Bush would veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
My boss is penning his Sunday column on the subject, and taking Bush to task for his threat.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

Because if there's one thing there's not enough of, it's leaks in Washington. The wall of silence must come down!

 

[jgmacg]

Here's hoping that if it becomes law, we use it wisely.

Judy Miller, Scooter Libby, and I all look forward to the passage of the Complicity In Dirty Tricks And Runaway Prosecutions Protection Act of 2007.

Usually you have to be under indictment, or bent double under the weight of your own shame, but we'll grandfather you in if you like.

 

[jfs1000]

This is a bad law. Journalists shouldn't have protections that normal American's don't have. It is just giving more power to the chattering class and corporate media.

Also, who is eligible for this law? Bloggers, freelancers? Or only professional journalists? You can not set up a separate class.


I know we like to think that it will only be used nobly, but there will be uses to this law that will make your skin crawl. Journalists rights derive from the first amendment. It didn't protect consequences of free speech for a reason.

This is actually chipping away at the notion that journalists are independent. Now, with this new classification, we are on our way to an established professional class. That's worse than compelled testimony, and bad for the public in the long run.

Shortsighted.

 

[slappy4428]

Umm.. yeah.

 

[jfs1000]

Umm.. yeah.

So you are in favor of setting up a professionally protected work class? Only people whose significant income comes from journalism? Do you now have to be accredited by the government?

Anyone at any time can be a journalist. That''s why our profession is different than a doctors or lawyers. Are we going to have to register?

Think about the longterm impact.

 

[Chi City 81]

This rant sounds familiar.

 

[slappy4428]

This rant sounds familiar.

Ummm... yeah.

 

[jfs1000]

This rant sounds familiar.

From who? A rant? It's much more thought out than that, better than the arguments I have heard about setting up a government sponsored professional classification.

This is a good intention that produces bad public policy. With the changing dynamics of journalism (citizen journalists and bloggers) how do we know what a journalist is going to be in 10 years? What happens if you are an independent web blogger who covers his town politics exhaustively. But, you do it as a part time job and don't generate much income from it. It's just you keeping government honest and nothing more. You aren't a journalist?

Who determines who is a journalist or not? The federal government?

This is fundamental. We can get into a journalism debate about the chilling effect that these forced compelled testimonies have on investigative journalism. Instead of bad law, we should be going after prosecutorial misconduct and setting up safety nets so journalists don't go to jail needlessly. A shield law is bad policy for our "profession."

We should have the exact same rights as the guy next to me. Not more.

 

[jfs1000]

Umm.. yeah.

Very insightful.

 

[Write-brained]

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

Read the First ****ing Amendment.

 

[Diabeetus]

This thread is making me LOL.