Free Flow of Information Act, Bloggers and the Text of the Act
Last week the House Judiciary Committee passed a new Journalist Shield law. A Shield law protects journalists from giving up sources, usually with some exceptions. Many online articles have been written about the law - few provide a link to the actual language of the Act.
This is an act that isn't long or difficiult to read - and reading it prevents one from making the mistake of saying that it says things that it doesn't say.
Specifically there is concern that as written, the Act would not only protect bloggers who actually do what most people think of as journalism, but would also technically protect the sources if a terrorist group posted a threat on the internet if it was posted in the format of a "news blog."
The Act defines a "covered person" as "The term `covered person' means a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person." Hmmm, you say - so what does journalism mean?
The Act defines journalism as "The term `journalism' means 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."
This definition has some poeple worried that it's so broad that it would include the example of a terrorist group that puts up a blog and posts a "News Alert" and then posts a threat that if X isn't done by Y time, Z consequence will occur. Well that would be News, and they have published it. But should their sources be protected? Clearly this is not the sort of thing we think of as "journalism" nor is it what I personally would want to have shielded.
One suggestion on defining journalism is to add the concept "and you do it for money." But that would allow our theoretical terrorists to sign up for google ads and be shielded.
I would suggest that the word that needs more definition is not journalism but "engaged." It would seem that if the publication, not just the indidivual article or post is ongoing and engaged in something more general than the subject matter about which discovery is sought, then you're engaged in journalism. On the other hand, if you are only posting about this one threat, or if your whole blog is only about how you're going to do A, B or C to your ex-wife (threats of bodily harm are not shielded) - then you're not engaged in journalism - you're engaged in an emotional tirade which happens to be news that is published.
Drafting legislation is not an easy task - I can't think of a clear way to encapsulate this concept. But I do think the concept that journalism involves more than just publishing news about the subject matter of the disclosure is a valid way to distinguish someone who should be shielded and someone who should not. Because the idea that bloggers can not be considered journalists is just wrong.
