Back in early May, an updated version of the Free Flow of Information Act (PDF) was introduced in Congress. The bill expanded the definition of a covered person further than any previous version (from May, 2005 on) of reporter’s shield legislation.
Unlike older versions, the newest version includes protection to anyone engaged in journalism, which is defined as - 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 - instead of basing eligibility on ties to specific media institutions – newspapers, books, magazines and periodicals in print or electronic form, along with their broadcast and wire-service counterparts.
On Thursday, the Bush administration assailed the latest draft of the bill as being too broad in scope, and would pose a grave threat to national security and federal investigations by protecting far too large a segment of the population.
Thursday’s CNET News.com has the story:
"The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web," Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing here. She also argued it would protect "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."
Justice Department opposition has bedeviled Congress throughout its numerous attempts in recent years to enact federal shield laws. Supporters say such legislation is needed in light of high-profile cases involving New York Times reporter Judith Miller and what free-press advocacy groups characterize as a sharp rise in subpoenas to reporters in recent years.
Laws recognizing some form of "reporter's privilege" already exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia--but, crucially, do not shield journalists from federal prosecutors. The Bush Administration claims there's no evidence that source-related subpoenas to reporters are on the rise and argues that it already has robust internal guidelines, including a requirement that the attorney general personally approve such subpoenas and provide an appropriate balance between press freedom and investigative needs.
But even as proposed, those covered by the new version could still be forced to give up their sources under certain circumstances, in particular, when it’s clear that crimes were committed – if and when imminent or actual harm to national security occurs – when trade secrets, nonpublic personal information or health records are compromised in violation of existing laws.
More from the article:
The hearing, which lasted about three hours, highlighted again the tensions that have arisen as the traditional mainstream media continues to overlap and collide with Internet-based upstarts. On several occasions, politicians from both parties questioned whether the bill should be so expansive as to include bloggers. Some bristled at the notion that the ease of publishing online could provide cover for those who want to leak sensitive information and get away with it.
"I'd say anyone who didn't want to face legal action would immediately try to put up a blog and try to get journalistic protection," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), adding that he hoped to work with his colleagues to refine that definition. But even one of the bill's opponents, George Washington University Law School professor Randall Eliason, said, "anything narrower is going to run into severe First Amendment problems."
William Safire, a longtime New York Times columnist and former Nixon administration speech writer, praised the bill's current definition because he said it focuses on the actions characteristic of journalists, not their affiliations.
"Whether you're a blogger or whether you're The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you're a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not," he said. (The New York Times, the National Association of Broadcasters and other journalism groups have endorsed the latest bill, according to its sponsors.)
The bill’s chief sponsors, Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va) and Mike Pence (R-Ind) didn’t address the definition of journalist they crafted directly at the hearing. However, earlier in the year, Boucher said in an interview by CNET that they intended to include bloggers "... who are regularly involved in newsgathering and reporting." Any changes to that definition would be left up to the courts.
Pence continued by saying the measure:
"... is not about protecting reporters, it’s about protecting the public’s right to know."
Besides the Justice Department, some Republicans also generally opposed the bill. Former Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis) cited last year’s New York Times story about a government computer system to track money laundering by terrorists as an example of a circumstance in which a news outlet actually harmed national security interests.
"I don't see very much responsibility there," he said. "It seems to me the burden of proof in showing a press shield will be used responsibly should be on the news media."
Damn Sensenbrenner and anyone else who’s hell-bent on removing every semblance of a check or balance on this administration. He and his ilk are afraid of anything they can’t control. Bloggers are now instilled in this country and the world as an integral part of journalism. Hell, bloggers may even supplant the MSM altogether in the near future, and all of us need protection. The fascists will try anything to maintain control but they’re working against a tide now.
We need to blanket Congress with calls and emails to let them know that we need to protect the TRUTH no matter what and that we refuse to go quietly into that dark night. We crave the sunlight too much to do that.
As the original sponsors of the bill, I must give props to Sen. Lugar (R-Ind) and even Rep. Pence (R-Ind) for trying to bolster the Constitution in the face of adversity at the hands of their fellow Republicans. I remember when they first announced the bill in 2005, I was shocked, and then even more surprised when they maintained support all the way through to today.
Peace