Difference between revisions of "2009-09-29 shield-law amendment excludes unpaid bloggers"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(wsj link from original article) |
(points to consider (3 of them)) |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<p>So there's no doubt that independent bloggers are the target here. At once we're considered irrelevant and so dangerous they have to legislatively set up a slippery slope that can land us in the clink or left penniless just for trying to participate in citizen journalism. Wow. The real issue here, however, is less the shield law than placing a definition of what is a journalist on the books. That will alllow pols, news outlets, state governments, etc. to deny [[citizen journalist]]s press access because they are not "journalists" as defined by federal law.</p> | <p>So there's no doubt that independent bloggers are the target here. At once we're considered irrelevant and so dangerous they have to legislatively set up a slippery slope that can land us in the clink or left penniless just for trying to participate in citizen journalism. Wow. The real issue here, however, is less the shield law than placing a definition of what is a journalist on the books. That will alllow pols, news outlets, state governments, etc. to deny [[citizen journalist]]s press access because they are not "journalists" as defined by federal law.</p> | ||
| − | </blockquote></let> | + | </blockquote> |
| + | '''Points to consider''': | ||
| + | * The [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h985/text actual text] of the [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h985/actions_votes bill] does not seem to contain the quoted text. (Was that clause taken out due to outcry from the blogosphere, or was it never really there?) | ||
| + | * The link given in the original source (a ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' blog) does not work -- due to the temporary nature of many links on [[THOMAS]] (why do I, amateur researcher, know about this and a pro WSJ blogger does not?), so it is not possible to verify where that text came from. | ||
| + | * Apparently this bill was introduced as long ago as 2005; is it any more likely to pass now than it did then? Is it moving upward or downward in votes? Definitely something to watch, either way, until it is very, very dead. | ||
| + | </let> | ||
<let name=data index=TextShort>The [[Free Flow of Information Act]] is intended to prevent [[journalist]]s from being forced to divulge confidential sources, except in cases such as witnessing crimes or acts of terrorism -- but specifically excludes [[citizen journalist]]s (aka bloggers) from being considered as "journalists", and would enshrine this definition in federal law.</let> | <let name=data index=TextShort>The [[Free Flow of Information Act]] is intended to prevent [[journalist]]s from being forced to divulge confidential sources, except in cases such as witnessing crimes or acts of terrorism -- but specifically excludes [[citizen journalist]]s (aka bloggers) from being considered as "journalists", and would enshrine this definition in federal law.</let> | ||
</hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if> | </hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if> | ||