The House passed the Free Flow of Information Act by a wide margin on Tuesday, but the
President has vowed to veto it. The Act is essentially a shield law backing the right of reporters -- and possibly some bloggers -- to protect the confidentiality of sources at the federal level.
Under the legislation, reporters would still be required to disclose information on sources if that information could be used to prevent a terrorist attack, apprehend an attacker of a past act of terrorism, or if information could be used to harm national security.
The bill, as it is currently written, protects "a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism," which involves the "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."
So does this include bloggers? Jacqueline Zenn of
Chasing the Southern Cross weighs in on the topic:
Do I think this bill is a good idea? Of course, and I’m happy to see bloggers included in its protection.*
However, I’m starting to wish there was another word for blogger. Seriously, when someone posting a daily diary online and say, the Huffington Post’s writers are placed in the same category, something is a little off. I don’t want to discount the efforts of personal bloggers, but there’s a certain disparity here. While some bloggers certainly qualify as journalists in my opinion (albeit journalists whose work is colored by their opinions, but I believe we’d be hard-pressed to find a journalist whose work was 100% objective), there are plenty more that are more like hobbyists.
Yes, there should be laws in place protecting the rights of bloggers, but I’m not sure if they belong under the journalistic shield. But perhaps I’m just a little bit mired in the old ways of thinking - after all, if the web, the ultimate free press, has allowed us all to be publishers, why can’t blogging fall under the umbrella of journalism? It’s not as if everything committed to print media is completely serious, objective, and/or perfect (from where I sit, the informality or frivolity of the web as opposed to print seems to the underlying tone of many “blogging vs. journalism” discussions). It’s plain that there needs to be more conversation on this issue.
*Just because it has been passed doesn’t mean that Bush won’t veto it; the Senate is also considering a similar bill.
Since the House version of the bill differs from the Senate one, Brad Friedman of
The Brad Blog says bloggers may not be covered:
Under the law, if the compromise version of both houses is passed using the House definition, it could potentially mean that we would not be "covered person" and thus not protected from being required by law to disclose our sources.
Such a statue could be a devastating blow to the ability of folks like us, not on a regular salaried contract with a major metropolitan newspapers or broadcast network, to guarantee privacy to our sources.
For mainstream, traditional journalists however, advocacy for a federal shield law is strong. Over 50 news outlets support the bill, citing reports on Abu Ghraib, clandestine CIA prisons and cruddy conditions at Walter Reed as examples where source confidentiality was essential.
Opponents cite several flaws behind the bill. Besides the President, Masson of
Blue Indiana.net has a few concerns:
I have mixed feelings on these sorts of laws. Being part of the legal system, I'm probably biased in favor of its prerogatives. When I judge tells someone to cough up information, generally I think the person ought to have to cough it up. However, I recognize that the First Amendment and the free flow of information it protects can benefit if sources feel like they can go to reporters and not get in trouble for doing so. And, I am inclined to protect the little guy fighting corruption that happens to have the full force of the government behind it. I want to protect Deep Throat and the types of folks who told Sy Hersch about Abu Ghraib. On the other hand, I don't have any inclination at all to protect guys like Scooter Libby or the administration sources who leaked information to Judith Miller about the Iraq war. The other thing I am a little iffy about is the idea of giving journalists First Amendment rights that are not available to the rest of the citizenry.
. . . I have two main problems with this legislation - First it makes coverage contingent on a person receiving significant financial gain for one's reporting. Second, it contains amorphous and potentially broad exceptions where national security concerns or disclosures of classified information are alleged.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that under the Constitution, journalist-client relationships are not protected. Furthermore, journalists currently have no rights to refuse to appear and testify in federal legal proceedings.
Most states, however, already have some type of shield law on the books. 33 states tout media shield statutes with 16 others having judicial precedents protecting reporters.
-Dippold
Political Online ReputationLabels: congress, journalism, law
The U.S. House of Representatives voted by voice Tuesday to require the registration of the sale and purchase of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. This stuff is a key ingredient in explosives used for the terrorist bombings of the Oklahoma City federal building and a night club in Bali, Indonesia. 
