

Senators spar over definition of ‘journalist’ in seeking to protect them - Shivetya
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/01/198338/senators-spar-over-definition.html#.UfuIWW02FnU

======
rlpb
"The bill defines a journalist as a person who has a "primary intent to
investigate events and procure material" in order to inform the public by
regularly gathering information through interviews and observations. The
person also must intend to report on the news at the start of obtaining any
protected information and must plan to publish that news."

It seems that there is some kind of existing agreement that not every blogger
can be considered a journalist (eg. if someone discovers something in the
course of his non-journalistic, professional duties, and chooses to publish
it).

Why must journalists be in a special category at all? If I (a software
engineer) choose to do something journalistic, why should that not count?

~~~
aspensmonster
>If I (a software engineer) choose to do something journalistic, why should
that not count?

Because that's entirely too scary.

------
atlantic
The whole difficulty the senators are having seems to be how to define
"journalist" in such a way as to exclude people associated with WikiLeaks,
which, whatever you think of it, is clearly a journalistic organization.
Sounds like mission impossible.

~~~
Shivetya
they are defining whom will be allowed to speak out against the government. By
using the term journalist they are attempting to circumvent the 1st Amendment,
if not modify it, under the guise of "journalist are the press" and if your
not a journalist you are not the press.

~~~
bostik
This quote, directly from the article, is indeed quite enlightening: "The
world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists
from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and we’ve
ensured that"

So basically, what they're saying: "There should be protection for
journalists, unless we don't like what they're publishing." What's the name
for a governmental body that passes favours for those who publish approved
stories and suppresses stories that could embarrass those in power?

Oh right... Ministery of Propaganda.

------
rayiner
There is some additional context that is important here: the bill is intended
to create additional protections that aren't already in place, specifically a
federal shield law:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States).
Right now, journalists don't have the right to refuse to testify about their
sources just as nobody has the right to refuse to testify about anything that
isn't covered by the 5th amendment or certain common law privileges. The first
amendment protects newspapers from censorship, but does not exempt journalists
from the obligation to testify in court about their knowledge, an obligation
shared by every other person. Shield laws create a special privilege as an
additional layer of protection. Most states have a shield law, but the federal
government does not. This bill is an attempt to create one.

As for why there is a need to define journalism or journalists, it's because
shield laws cut across a very basic assumption in the legal system: a court
can force someone to testify about nearly anything that is relevant. The
exceptions are very deeply-rooted ones, like the 5th amendment right to refuse
to testify against yourself, spousal privilege (the right to refuse to testify
against a spouse), and attorney-client privilege.

It's important to define and cabin the bounds of the privilege, because
otherwise anybody could invoke it. Imagine if business partners in a shady
dealing could refuse to testify against each other by claiming that one was
giving the other legal advice and therefore their conversations were protected
by attorney client privilege. Real life isn't CSI, where there is always an
orgy of physical evidence. The most basic tool of the court system is being
able to get people to testify about what happened, in front of a jury of
ordinary people who can judge the credibility of that testimony.

------
talmand
Ah yes, excellent way to control what gets reported.

Government creates a protected class for journalists. In the future
journalists will refrain from reporting bad news about the government that
provides them with said protections. Can we not see the idea that the
government will pressure journalists to name their sources anyway with the
threat of removing these "protections" before they step into court to answer
questions?

Reading the quotes from these politicians is almost reading about bigotry or
class warfare. This talk of "real reporters" and "special privileges" only
intended for certain people based on government rules.

Want the support of the news media? Be the candidate that supports these
"protections" for this special class of people. Don't dare be the candidate
that wants to remove these "protections" for the good of the people who aren't
special enough to be considered part of the protected class.

It's bad enough we have corporations mucking around in the news media, now we
have to deal with government officials setting their hooks as well.

------
betterunix
Oh heavens no! This might wind up covering Wikileaks! They are clearly not
journalists, since all they do is publish material people give them after
performing some review of that material. As we all know, _real_ journalists do
some other thing.

------
coldcode
The First Amendment makes no definition so people feel the need to exclude
people they don't like. Yet clearly the intent for a "free press" was that
they could be anyone; otherwise the term free is meaningless.

------
bowlofpetunias
Any country that has a legal definition of "journalist" that gives said
journalists rights not granted to ordinary citizens has neither freedom of
information nor freedom of speech.

This debate isn't so much about the definition of "journalist", but the
question of how to keep the majority of the population silent and uninformed.

~~~
rayiner
The U.S. definitely does not have some far-reaching "freedom of information."
In the American system, you've always been chargeable with the information
revealed by what you choose to say. E.g. if your girlfriend breaks up with
you, and you e-mail all of her coworkers and tell them she has herpes, she can
sue you for revealing that information. The same is true for all sorts of
confidential and private information in different contexts. The core purpose
of the freedom of speech is to express opinions, specifically political
opinions, not some larger "freedom of information."

------
ericHosick
How much do you think a journalist license is going to cost and how many
licenses will be offered every year?

