A Shield For Bloggers -- Or Maybe Not
[Cross-posted from National Journal's Beltway Blogroll]
The House yesterday passed a bill aimed at shielding journalists and some bloggers from having to disclose their anonymous sources to the government. Technology Daily reported on the development this morning. Here's our summary of the news as reported in other publications:
The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed legislation to shield reporters from federal prosecution for refusing to divulge their news sources or information except in a few circumstances. CongressDaily (subscription required), The Washington Post, News.com and the Los Angeles Times report that the vote was 398-21.
Under the bill, journalists engaged in news-gathering activities, including bloggers, still could be compelled to disclose information on sources if needed to prevent an act of terrorism. The House adopted language to let judges consider the public interest in forcing disclosure in cases involving leaks that could be harmful to national security, not just criminal cases.
But the bill has too many restrictions to please Matt Stoller of Open Left. He said the requirement that a "substantial portion" of a blogger's livelihood come from gathering and publishing news will exclude most bloggers, including himself.
"I have no opinion as to whether shield laws are a good idea or not," Stoller said, "but it's worth noting that this law doesn't cover amateurs, consultants like me, people like Steve Clemons [of The Washington Note], diarists on [Daily Kos] or [bloggers] who derive most of their income from other sources. I don't understand why 'gathering and publishing news and information for dissemination to the public' isn't a good enough standard."
UPDATE: Add Duncan Black of Eschaton and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos, two of the left's top bloggers, to the list of skeptics about the House-passed bill. "Boo defining journalism based on whether it makes you money," Black said.
Kos was a bit more circumspect, acknowledging that there are legitimate concerns about people "availing themselves of these shield protections by merely throwing up a quick fake blog." But he said the Senate could improve the bill "by changing 'substantial financial gain' to something along the lines of 'substantial publishing history.' Or by giving authors protection only from suits arising from legitimate published materials."
What he apparently does not realize is that the Senate may be even less inclined than the House to offer legal protection to bloggers. Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that does not specifically mention bloggers.
Categories:
Media
Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus