“Free Flow of Information Act” Targets Independent Journalism

James Tracy

The fact that the US Senate is now defining what a journalist actually is sets a dangerous precedent threatening the present marketplace of ideas that in recent history has been greatly expanded by the internet.

According to the text of an amendment sponsored by Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin to the proposed “Free Flow of Information Act” (PDF) that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, only salaried journalists will be given the free press protections guaranteed to all US citizens by the Constitution.

Under such a law presumably only the news reporters and analysts employed by moderate-to-substantial revenue-generating news entities are regarded as “legitimate” journalists. This is because the Feinstein-Durbin amendment’s wording is especially vague on exactly what type of news organization the writer needs to be affiliated with to be able to comment and report freely.

Dianne Feinstein: First Amendment Is A Special Privilege

Youtube

Sociopaths are running the government. Let's define who qualifies for the special privilege of free speech in the new media shield law.


Subscribe to E. Pratt Witney's Channel

Cf. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Senator Dianne Feinstein
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Be the Change! Share this using the tools below.

Shield Law Sponsor Not Sure Bloggers "Deserve" Free Speech Rights

"You can sit in your mother’s basement and chat away, I don't care," says Lindsey Graham (R-SC) but then asks if "they [bloggers] deserve First Amendment protection?" when it comes to classified information.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

J.P. Hicks

Who knew the speech of the media and bloggers wasn't already protected?

The U.S. senate is working on a media shield law that would protect the media against government retaliation for exposing sensitive information.

I thought the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights made it quite clear that all speech was already protected: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since the government has been on the rampage to punish whistleblowers who have exposed government crimes, perhaps additional clarity is needed. However, it seems that the politicians are using the media shield law to decide who gets free speech protection and who doesn't.