If you read Markos' diary last night, you know the deal: the Senate Judiciary Committee is meeting this morning to discuss the long-awaited extension of press shield protections into federal courts. The key question up for grabs in S. 448 is who counts as a "journalist" and therefore can generally protect her confidential sources from a prosecutor's reach -- the original bill states that a journalist "means a person who is engaged in journalism," while the Durbin-Feinstein amendment would restrict these protections to someone who is "working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for" some media organization.
The whole point of press shield laws -- and why the overwhelming majority of states have enacted them -- is that we believe that that citizens benefit by having sources being able to approach journalists in confidence who can then make their stories public, and that this press function constitutes such an important value that we're not going to let prosecutors force the disclosure of these sources absent some pretty damn compelling reasons.
Well, if good journalism is worth protecting, then it shouldn't matter whether or not the writer is paid for her work, or the type of entity for which she's writing. The only question should be "is this person doing journalism?" Is she working with confidential sources in order to be able to tell stories to the public? (As the original bill puts it, is this a person involved in "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," and I do believe the qualifier of "regular" is a sensible restriction.)
We need to reach out to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning to persuade them to protect all journalists equally. If you are represented by one of the Senators on the committee, call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121. When connected ask to speak to a staffer who works with the Senator on Judiciary matters, and explain why the Senator should oppose the Durbin-Feinstein amendment. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, so calling your Republican senator might actually make a difference. Committee members are:
Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
Dianne Feinstein (California)
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
Charles Schumer (New York)
Dick Durbin (Illinois)
Ben Cardin (Maryland)
Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Ted Kaufman (Delaware)
Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)
Al Franken (Minnesota)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Jon Kyl (Arizona)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)
Time is of the essence, and bloggers don't have a permanent lobbying presence on the Hill to make this case in person. We need to do this ourselves. Right now. Take two minutes and make a call to protect online press equality today.