Feinstein: 1st Amendment Is A Special Privilege, Not A Right

[EEllis]

Because it has the following definition of a "journalist.":

"(A) means a person who— is, or on the relevant date, was, a salaried employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information by means of..."

I think that leaves an awful lot of room for interpretation, and does exclude bloggers who are not salaried, or contractors, or agents of entities. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that the motivation behind this amendment is to prevent little Jimmy in his basement from being shielding against testifying, nor do I believe all judges will have anything near the same interpretation of what a jornalist is or is not.

"agent of an entity" covers bloggers, covers anyone who belongs to anything by definition. Even if they are the only individual involved in in the reporting. If that entity is journalistic( did I just make up a word) in nature than they would be covered.

[EEllis]

No, I think free speech is free speech, and the government shouldn't be able to intimidate ANYONE for writing something, true or false, on their blog, in their newspaper, on their tv channel, on the facebook page or anywhere else. Where in the Constitution does it say that if the government doesn't like your speech they can arrest you and force you to divulge your sources for the information if you want to be free again?

OK but can we pretend to be on topic because that is not what a media shield law is about no matter how often you say it.

[MeMelYup]

Because it has the following definition of a "journalist.":

"(A) means a person who— is, or on the relevant date, was, a salaried employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information by means of..."

I think that leaves an awful lot of room for interpretation, and does exclude bloggers who are not salaried, or contractors, or agents of entities. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that the motivation behind this amendment is to prevent little Jimmy in his basement from being shielding against testifying, nor do I believe all judges will have anything near the same interpretation of what a jornalist is or is not.

"agent of an entity" covers bloggers, covers anyone who belongs to anything by definition. Even if they are the only individual involved in in the reporting. If that entity is journalistic( did I just make up a word) in nature than they would be covered.

Then they will redefine entity.

[VoiceofReason]

People have short memories. I thought I would just throw this into the discussion.

October 11, 2009 “White House Says Fox Is Not A News Network”.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ws-network" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[EEllis]

Then they will redefine entity.

OK so? If that's true then anything can mean anything so what why argue?

[jmra]

Then they will redefine entity.

OK so? If that's true then anything can mean anything so what why argue?

[texanjoker]

You slowly chip away at the 2nd then comes the 1st...................... trying to limit who can report what is nonsense.

[VMI77]

I don't get the criticism of the OP. I listened to the video and the old hag definitely says a category of people, "journalists," should get special privileges not available to anyone not so certified by the Feds. That means my unfettered RIGHT to practice "journalism" is to be abridged because I didn't go to the government's approved school for the dissemination of propaganda. That makes the title accurate. The 1st Amendment has no language limiting a free press....NONE. It's doesn't say only government approved press agents or specially trained propagandists called "journalists" have the right to a free press. The people who published pamphlets and newspapers when this Amendment was written were not specially trained or government certified "journalists." As a practical and logical matter, the reverse should be true: those trained propagandists called "journalists" should be the ones without any special privileges.

[VoiceofReason]

Why do reporters require protection? From whom?

Why shouldn't reporters be required to appear and testify like anyone else? Why should their speech be more precious than anyone else's?

As I understand it, this law is intended to keep the federal government from intimidating or coercing members of the news media for “speech” the government does not want. Now congress, members of the media and people are caught up arguing who and by what criteria will decide who is a “journalist”.

I agree,

“Why do reporters require protection? From whom?” Why should their speech be more precious than anyone else's?”.

The federal government should not be allowed to investigate, question, or intimidate anyone without clear, compelling reason to believe they have committed a crime or intend to commit a crime.

You or I should be able to start a blog, hand out leaflets or say anything we wish “on the air” and enjoy the same “freedom of speech” rights as a paid journalist as long as we break no laws.

The “Patriot Act” has been allowed to go too far and is being abused. The Federal, and even local Governments have a long proud history of using the laws and law enforcement against those that say or write things they don’t want said or written.

Saying on facebook “(Insert name) __________ is a *&^^%* pig and (insert slander)_________. Is wrong and may be subject to a civil action (IANAL).

Stating your opinion or facts on a blog, why you are of that opinion and including references to material supporting your opinion should be protected just as much as anything a “journalist” writes.

Are “real reporters” going to be required to obtain a license from the federal government to be protected by the first amendment? This law was intended to restrict government power. Feinstein wants amendments that would increase government control.

[EEllis]

As I understand it, this law is intended to keep the federal government from intimidating or coercing members of the news media for “speech” the government does not want. Now congress, members of the media and people are caught up arguing who and by what criteria will decide who is a “journalist”.

You misunderstand the law and the Constitution. "intimidating or coercing members of the news media for “speech” the government does not want", and by the way that's a great turn of phrase, is already unconstitutional and this bill would have no effect on that at all. Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) established that "Until now, the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination," the justices said. "We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do." The court did acknowledge a tiny exception: "Official harassment of the press undertaken not for purposes of law enforcement but to disrupt a reporter's relationship with his news sources" might violate the First Amendment." A separate but concurring opinion by Justice Powell said on the same case "As indicated in the concluding portion of the opinion, the Court states that no harassment of newsmen will be tolerated," he wrote. Consequently, a reporter who thinks "his testimony implicates confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement" can move to quash the subpoena. In response, the judge must "balance the competing interests on their merits"—the need for the testimony versus the reporter's "asserted claim to privilege."

So basically all this bill does is shield reporters sources when they promise to keep them confidential. That is a Media Shield Law. Media has gained a sort of privilege in most places because historically they have earned it by spending time in jail rather than giving up sources. It's been claimed that abridging that privilege would hinder the Media's ability to gather info to report the news to the public. While that has been rejected by SCOTUS it has been granted by lower courts and , again, has been bolstered by many members of the media who have quite publicly gone to jail rather than reveal sources.

This bill will not affect anyone's 1st A rights. It just doesn't. Now it might grant reporters an unnecessary privilege....

[MeMelYup]

As I understand it, this law is intended to keep the federal government from intimidating or coercing members of the news media for “speech” the government does not want. Now congress, members of the media and people are caught up arguing who and by what criteria will decide who is a “journalist”.

You misunderstand the law and the Constitution. "intimidating or coercing members of the news media for “speech” the government does not want", and by the way that's a great turn of phrase, is already unconstitutional and this bill would have no effect on that at all. Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) established that "Until now, the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination," the justices said. "We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do." The court did acknowledge a tiny exception: "Official harassment of the press undertaken not for purposes of law enforcement but to disrupt a reporter's relationship with his news sources" might violate the First Amendment." A separate but concurring opinion by Justice Powell said on the same case "As indicated in the concluding portion of the opinion, the Court states that no harassment of newsmen will be tolerated," he wrote. Consequently, a reporter who thinks "his testimony implicates confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement" can move to quash the subpoena. In response, the judge must "balance the competing interests on their merits"—the need for the testimony versus the reporter's "asserted claim to privilege."

So basically all this bill does is shield reporters sources when they promise to keep them confidential. That is a Media Shield Law. Media has gained a sort of privilege in most places because historically they have earned it by spending time in jail rather than giving up sources. It's been claimed that abridging that privilege would hinder the Media's ability to gather info to report the news to the public. While that has been rejected by SCOTUS it has been granted by lower courts and , again, has been bolstered by many members of the media who have quite publicly gone to jail rather than reveal sources.

This bill will not affect anyone's 1st A rights. It just doesn't. Now it might grant reporters an unnecessary privilege....

The way I read it is it will protect a reporter and his source, like attorney/client privilege or Dr./patient privilege.

[baldeagle]

Isn't it odd that the Founding Fathers saw no need to provide "special protections" to reporters? Apparently it never occurred to them that the government might use its power and might to coerce reporters into revealing their sources. Apparently they thought that if a reporter committed a crime, they should go to jail like everyone else, but if they reported a crime someone else committed they had not committed a crime and could not be threatened with jail. Apparently additional protections are now needed because the government has overstepped its bounds and chosen to harass reporters into revealing their sources because law enforcement is abysmally incapable of developing their own cases and convicting people based on evidence. So now the government gets to decide who's protected and who's not and by doing so compromise the integrity of reporters by forcing them to play nice with the government or be subject to rule changes that place them in legal jeopardy.

It's all so complicated. Far too complicated for us simple citizens to understand, so we don't get that special privilege. Has nothing to do with rights, though. It's all about privileges. This is the current state of "logic" and "reason" in this country.

[WildBill]

Voting for the candidate of our choice is our right.

Voting Feinstein out of office is our privilege.

[G26ster]

This thread has become very confused by varied opinions of the proposed Media Shield Law, the Constitution, and the Feinstein amendment. You can't lump all 3 together in one neat package, as each of us see possible issues in one or more of those areas . I have been arguing that the Feinstein amendment was too restrictive on the definition of "journalist." Some have argued it restricts the First Amendment by not covering "all" citizens, and some have argued the law is just fine as written with the Feinstein amendment.

For me, the "good news" is the the final version passed in the Senate committee changes the Feinstein amendment to a broader definition of journaist, but allows for judicial discretion in each individual case.

Here is an article on the law that has gone to the floor of the Senate:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/s ... -imperfect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[VoiceofReason]

Whistle blower protections need to be expanded also. Unbelievable waste, fraud and abuse is rampant in the federal government. Most employees (believe it or not) have a problem with seeing extravagant items purchased and money wasted and thrown away. Management then tells the employees the agency does not have the money to provide the necessary tools to do the job or they are going to have to take time off without pay. Some employees have even brought in office supplies at their own expense.

Contrary to popular belief sexual harassment and racial discrimination still flourishes in government jobs and EEO is a facade in the workplace. Everything is classified. If a document is not confidential or above then it is “For Official Use Only”. Cameras are not allowed even in areas where nothing classified exists and recording anything is forbidden.

The “whistle blower” cannot be retaliated against for “blowing the whistle” but other reasons can be found to fire him/her. He/she can have years of good appraisals, “blow the whistle” on fraud then suddenly their work performance is unacceptable, no matter what they do. If they (for some reason) can’t be fired, forget about ever getting a promotion.

Congressional complaints are investigated by the agency the complaint was filed against and guess what? The complaint was found to be baseless.

Journalists are protected but until employees are no longer afraid of bringing forward unethical or illegal activities, it will be “business as usual” in the government.