Author Topic: Feinstein' bill to kill free speech of independent journalist 'has votes' to pass senate  (Read 457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,510
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Feinstein’s Bill to Kill Free Speech of Independent Journalists ‘Has Votes’ to Pass Senate
Nick Bernabe
Activist Post

After fending off numerous attacks on the freedom of the internet last year, activists and independent journalists alike are now facing another hurdle that flies in the face of freedom of the press, the “Journalist Shield Law“.

Although the bill is being sold by the Obama administration and establishment politicians in both parties as a positive step in protecting free speech, unfortunately the name of this bill is highly deceiving. Remembering just how unpatriotic the Patriot Act was, this new law, although deceivingly named, is likely to crush freedom of speech of any journalist not on a corporate payroll. According to the AP, this is how the bill defines who a real journalist is:

The bill’s protections would apply to a “covered journalist,” defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a “covered journalist” who would be granted the privileges of the law.
Essentially, if you don’t work for the likes of the dying mainstream media, the government can (and will) subpoena any journalist to force them to reveal their sources or face prosecution. Apparently, as described by one of the nation’s biggest hypocrites, the First Amendment only applies to some people and the government should get to decide who those people are. According to the bill, any information that “in purpose, subject matter and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling disclosure of peripheral, nonessential or speculative information.” could potentially be subject to Big Brother’s sticky fingers. You can see the two different versions of the bill here and here and Feinstein’s journalism crushing amendment here.

Feinstein specifically singles out young entrepreneurs who start news websites as well as the Wikileaks organization. You can see what she said in the video posted below: describes the Feinstein amendment as follows:

Feinstein’s suggestion is blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment is clear: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” yet here is a member of Congress trying to do precisely that. By applying a strict definition to who can be considered a journalist, Feinstein is not only discrediting, but also destructing independent and citizen journalism.
This bill later goes on to define how a real (corporate) journalist would go about disseminating information:

“newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast … or motion picture for public showing.”
This language, although dangerously vague, clearly fails to protect any journalist, reporter or blogger who reports via social media. Facebook page admins, YouTube video extraordinaires, Twitter phenoms and top Tumblrers say goodbye to your freedom of speech.

I can’t tell whether this is another corporate jab at the free flow of information or just Big Bureaucracy trying to protect it’s backside from the highly anti-establishment independent media. Either way, this is a dangerous piece of legislation, once again disguised under a misleading name, aimed directly at the growing anti-media movement.

Free Press describes the law: "Most problematically, disclosure can be compelled when the information in question would assist the federal government in stopping or mitigating “other acts that are reasonably likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security.” This language could be construed to apply to any number of circumstances, so long as the government argues there is some threat to the limitless concept of “national security.

Another shortfall lies in how the Act limits the scope of who qualifies as a covered person. Many policymakers want to limit protections to those who make a significant amount of their income and livelihood from journalism. But the federal shield law should cover anyone who provides journalistic services, even if a person is not professionally or regularly employed as a journalist.”

Although the reason for this new media shattering language is still unknown, what is clear is that this bill must be killed. Here is a petition you can sign, maybe they’ll read it. More importantly, call or email your Senators and let them know we want free press not free* press. Support your favorite indy journalists now while you still can. Subscribe to their email lists, donate to them, share their articles and videos and stand together against this corporate bureaucratic power grab. If you’ve been thinking about getting into the independent journalism field, get some blood in the game now before it’s too late. Let’s hit them with everything we’ve got. Here’s a quick guide that we put together for anyone thinking about joining the anti-media movement.

For a more in-depth look at the Journalism Shield Law watch this video starting at 1:10:
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 06:04:40 AM by rangerrebew »
Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Online 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,872
Welcome to Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and China, everyone. Who says so called "Liberals" are really autocratic authoritarians? That's crazy!
The fact is that the American Right, most of it, fights for freedom. The American Left fights for subjugation of the population. And, it is stunning how many Ameicans 'want' to be subjects and subjugated. This is a mindset which is incomprehensible to people on the Right.
Essentially, what the Left is saying with this is that an ordinary citizen is no longer covered by the Constitution unless they have government approval. Of course, as with everything else, this 'Law' will not apply to government. These days, 'Laws' rarely apply to the people who write them.
So when Pelosi says "a Republican" told her that Republicans hate poor people, will she have to reveal her source? Of course not. When Reid says "someone" told him that Mitt Romney does not pay taxes, will he have to reveal his source? Of course not. Even though neither one of these are 'covered' journalists by their own definition, not that the 'Law' matter anyway when it comes to politicians.
What this is, is a gag order on America. And it is absolutely scary that it may actually pass. This is another glaring example of how the Left believes that "unalienable rights" are rights granted by the government, not by God.
If the government confiscates the First Amendment, what other 'rights' will they attempt to 'control' next? Me thinks, ALL OF THEM.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Offline Gazoo

  • Inactive Members
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,968
"The Tea Party has a right to feel cheated.

When does the Republican Party, put in the majority by the Tea Party, plan to honor its commitment to halt the growth of the Federal monolith and bring the budget back into balance"?

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo