"Media Shield Law" emerges after reporters harassed by feds

[rambone]

This bill allegedly would give journalists "some protections from penalties for refusing to identify confidential sources in federal law enforcement proceedings, and generally enabling journalists to ask a federal judge to quash subpoenas for their phone records."

“I’ve proposed, along with Lindsey Graham, and we’ll be announcing that we have four Democrats and four Republicans, and another Gang of Eight,” Schumer said on CBS’ Face The Nation.

Most of the Establishment big wigs are all lined up for this bill. The White House, Schumer, Reid, Graham, Durban, Conyers, Boxer, and more.

Senator Dick Durban said, “Here is the bottom line – the media shield law, which I am prepared to support … still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?”




Sen. Dick Durbin on media shield: Should bloggers get 'constitutional protection?' | Washington Times

Top Democrat Announces Bipartisan 'Gang Of Eight' To Draft Media Shield Law

Under Fire, White House Pushes To Revive Media Shield Bill | NY Times


BILL STATUS:
Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (H.R. 1962) - GovTrack.us

Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (S. 987) - GovTrack.us

 

[rambone]

"Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves," he said. "Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times." -- Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham Isn't Sure If Bloggers Deserve 'First Amendment Protection'

 

[Bunnykid68]

douchebaggery at its finest

 

[CathyInBlue]

Rambone, you used an incorrect pic. Here's the correct pic.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

 

[silverspoon]

Why do we need another law? The First Amendment has sufficed for over 200 years. Why should there be any distinction between "reporters" and the common man? Do they put their pants on in some special way or something?

Darnit, time to write my Senators once again.

 

[Constructionist]

Why do we need another law? The First Amendment has sufficed for over 200 years. Why should there be any distinction between "reporters" and the common man? Do they put their pants on in some special way or something?

Darnit, time to write my Senators once again.

because more laws fix everything.

 

[rambone]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Thursday, a Senate panel formed by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) voted 13-5 to move forward with legislation aimed at codifying the definition of a “covered journalist,” effectively establishing which Americans deserve protection from the First Amendment — and which don’t.

Cloaked under the guise of “protecting” selected journalists from having to divulge the identities of their confidential sources, the so-called “media shield” law has the support of both high-ranking government officials as well as many members of the established media. Those in power in Washington agree that journalists deserve legal protection, but only if they get to decide who is a real reporter. While lawmakers decide who should and should not be considered a “real” journalist, one thing appears certain – bloggers and online media outlets are not held in high regard.

“Is any blogger out there saying anything — do they deserve First Amendment protection?
– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

“What is a journalist today, in 2013? We know its someone who works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision in our constitution that was written over 200 years ago.”
-- Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)

READ MORE: Feds move to limit who is a “covered journalist” deserving constitutional protection

 

[dirtfarmerz]

They know journalists are protected under the 1st Amendment, but they want to redefine the Constitution so they do this to make it appear they are protecting our freedom. The other Amendments are up for redefining if they get away with this. They don't want more whistleblowers and journalists exposing their agenda. This is just one more step to protect themselves, not us.

They know we're sharing information on the internet. They'll get around to protecting us there too.

 

[KG1]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Thursday, a Senate panel formed by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) voted 13-5 to move forward with legislation aimed at codifying the definition of a “covered journalist,” effectively establishing which Americans deserve protection from the First Amendment — and which don’t.

Cloaked under the guise of “protecting” selected journalists from having to divulge the identities of their confidential sources, the so-called “media shield” law has the support of both high-ranking government officials as well as many members of the established media. Those in power in Washington agree that journalists deserve legal protection, but only if they get to decide who is a real reporter. While lawmakers decide who should and should not be considered a “real” journalist, one thing appears certain – bloggers and online media outlets are not held in high regard.

“Is any blogger out there saying anything — do they deserve First Amendment protection?
– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

“What is a journalist today, in 2013? We know its someone who works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision in our constitution that was written over 200 years ago.”
-- Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)

READ MORE: Feds move to limit who is a “covered journalist” deserving constitutional protection

The part highlighted in bold is familiar, only I think that some wish it to apply to the Constitution as a whole.

 

[cobber]

They know journalists are protected under the 1st Amendment, but they want to redefine the Constitution so they do this to make it appear they are protecting our freedom. The other Amendments are up for redefining if they get away with this. They don't want more whistleblowers and journalists exposing their agenda. This is just one more step to protect themselves, not us.

They know we're sharing information on the internet. They'll get around to protecting us there too.

This is quite perverse. The government redefining without amending the Constitution, to limit citizen freedoms and protect the government...

1984

 

[HenryWallace]

The question that needs to be stated out here, there, everywhere... is "Who has rights appointed by our Constitution?"

The answer, IMO should be plain and simple. EVERYONE. And for good reason. I belive most would call them 'God Given RIghts'.

Feinstein and Cruz had an argument (you may recall about 5 months ago, seems like an eternity ago for the standard watcher/listener) in where Cruz asked "Would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?" and this was conserning the AWB in it's application on whom the Fed .gov allows and disallows rights.

This is what (obviously) is being questioned now. Or should I say, not questioned and openly legislated on.

Lest we forget.

 

[Trigger Time]

I see where we are heading and its not pretty.

 

[cosermann]

Classy - only protecting "their" media. Thomas Paine started out as a pamphleteer with "Common Sense." He was a blogger for his day.

Some of the proposed language for this new bill would have excluded Paine. Reprehensible.

 

[rambone]

Federal appeals court rules bloggers are real reporters under the First Amendment | WashingtonExaminer.com

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision Friday recognizing bloggers as journalists under the First Amendment came about in a defamation lawsuit.

"The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story," the court ruled in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Very good news, thanks for posting this, ram.

 

[BogWalker]

Okay, someone clear this up for me. So they are attempting to limit the First Amendment rights of bloggers and such by pretending to protect the First Amendment rights of "real" reporters? Am I getting that correctly?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Allowing "real journalists" to access Media Shield laws but not bloggers.

The debate has been ongoing for a couple of years.

Are All Bloggers Journalists? - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Journalist now includes blogger as it should.

 

[Classic]

Look for the "journalist shield" law to quietly disappear in the face of the 9th Circuit ruling. Anybody want to wager?

 

[gstanley102]

Why do we need another law? The First Amendment has sufficed for over 200 years. Why should there be any distinction between "reporters" and the common man? Do they put their pants on in some special way or something?

Darnit, time to write my Senators once again.

That's pretty easy.

Once they have the power to grant protection from a particular group,
they'll have the power to deny that protection from any other selected group.

Just another way around that troublesome constitution.