[IP] Weekly column: Who should you call a journalist, nowadays? [fs]
Begin forwarded message:
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
Date: November 1, 2005 1:58:53 PM EST
To: politech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Politech] Weekly column: Who should you call a journalist,
nowadays? [fs]
http://news.com.com/2010-1025_3-5907336.html
Perspective: So who should you call a journalist?
By Declan McCullagh
October 24, 2005, 4:00 AM PDT
A renewed effort in the U.S. Congress to create a federal shield law
for news organizations is raising a sticky question: Who is a
journalist?
A generation ago, the answer usually was clear. Not anymore. Online
scribes and video publishers are experimenting with novel forms of
journalism, and even the most stodgy news organizations are embracing
blogs.
That leaves politicians--hardly the most clued in about all things
tech--in something of a quandary. They're being lobbied by
professional news organizations and the American Bar Association to
approve some kind of journalist's shield law while being urged by
prosecutors to leave out bloggers.
The justification for a shield law is a perfectly reasonable one.
After a federal appeals court enforced grand jury subpoenas against
The New York Times and Time magazine, and the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to take the case, news organizations decided to fix the law.
The Justice Department took a swipe at the leading shield proposal
(H.R.3323/S.1419) during a Senate hearing last week, arguing that it
would let criminals pose as bloggers.
[...remainder snipped...]
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1637&wit_id=4704
STATEMENT OF
CHUCK ROSENBERG
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
...
Such an expansive definition of “covered person” could
unintentionally offer a safe haven for criminals. As drafted, the
definition invites criminals to cloak their activities under the
guise of a “covered person,” so as to avoid investigation by the
Federal government. The overbroad definition of a “covered person”
could be read to include any person or corporate entity whose
employees or corporate subsidiaries publish a book, newspaper, or
magazine; operate a radio or television broadcast station; or operate
a news or wire service. Additionally, the definition arguably could
include any person who sets up an Internet “blog” or any other
activity to “disseminate information by print, broadcast, cable
satellite[, etc.],” as set forth in the bill.
More generally, the Department does not believe that legislation is
necessary because there is no evidence that the subpoena power is
being abused by the Department in this context. The Department prides
itself on its record of objectivity in reviewing press subpoenas, and
any legislation that would impair the discretion of the Attorney
General to issue press subpoenas – or to exercise any other
investigative options in the exercise of the President’s
constitutional powers – is unwarranted. For the last 33 years, the
Department of Justice has authorized subpoenas to the news media only
in a small number of cases involving serious allegations of criminal
conduct. Since 1991, 3.7% of the media subpoena requests processed by
the Criminal Division for Attorney General approval were for
confidential source material.
...
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/