A: Journalism!
It would seem that this and this are exactly the same!
Sheesh.
You know, I knew my take on whether or not bloggers were always journalists wouldn't be too popular among bloggers who are, after all, very important people, and not at all in love with themselves.
Even blogger Bob is siding with the CA and claiming in very specific words that shield laws aren't designed to protect reporters, but "the public." Which just isn't true. Shield laws allow reporters to cultivate sources that wouldn't come forward if the journalist could be legally compelled to reveal his sources. In other words, they protect "the public" most by allowing reporters to gain the trust of and to work with sources who, for whatever reason, don't want to be dragged into an investigation. Moreover, some shield laws protect the reporter, even if the name of the source is eventually revealed.
The constitution does not provide a shield law. It's not in the first amdt. There is no federal shield law, and its not likely there will ever be one. Shield laws are controversial, a lot of states don't have them, and with exceptions, the ones that do exist could be stronger and broader. But it'll never get any better if every swinging dick and/or tit that can get an account on blogspot is covered by it. And that's a nut that the self-enamored bloggers will just have to suck on.
You see opponents of shield laws-- just like certain self-satisfied bloggers-- don't think members of the press should enjoy a privilege that isn't extended to everyone. Only opponents of shield laws think NOBODY, under any circumstance, should be exempt from the power of a subpoena. Self-loving bloggers think that everyone who can get a blogspot account (meaning everybody) should have the right to be exempt from subpoenas. That's what you call two sides of the same coin.
And anybody who actually thinks we need shield laws to protect reporters, whistleblowers, "the peoples" etc. needs to seriously consider the implications of calling everyone with a blog, or the ability to get one a journalist. Becuase its not only stupid, it's a little bit dangerous.
TO CLARIFY: It's dangerous because once anybody with an internet account can become exempt from subpoena power all shield laws will be dismantled. Bank on it.
UPDATE: Links all fixed.
MORE UPDATE: At some point the necessary, but unlikely to ever be enacted Federal Shield law was altered to include coverage for bloggers, which set off a chain reaction of events. I'm still trying to find good detailed links, but here's what I remember. The language had to be revised to cover blogs that contributed to the bloggers livlihood, but even that wasn't enough for opponents. The last I remember hearing was that in addition to the livlihood requirement, some determination had to be made as to what types of blogs would and wouldn't be covered. If I can find a good link explaining the evolution of this language I'll link it.
LAST UPDATE OF THIS POST: (In which I owe my heartfelt sorries to John Branston, and maybe Thaddeus Matthews but nobody else) Tennessee's Free Flow of Information Act (I'd been searching for "Tennessee Shield Law" like a dumbass) describes covered individuals as, "as a person who regularly gathers, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes information concerning matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or substantial financial gain. " So there is language allowing that not everybody with a blogger account is legally considered to be a journalist and therefore protected from subpoenas. In my original post I said Branston overvalued the meaning of his paycheck, but as it turns out that's how Tennessee rolls.
I don't know if the financial gain Thaddeus receives from advertising by the Ford funeral home and Mike's Dry Cleaning is "substantial" but that should certainly help to determine whether or not he qualifies for coverage.
I'll repeat, for the record, that Thaddeus has a history of using decontextualized pieces of information to imply that he knows things he never proves, and that he's gone after Godwin repeatedly using threatning language (not offensive, satirical, or angry--- but threatning). And that's a problem. But he may qualify, by the letter of the law.
And I'm happy to see that no matter what blogger Bob or Michael Silence thinks, my belief that access to technology doesn't make you a journalist is affirmed by law.
ACTUAL LAST UPDATE (Oy vey edition): Okay, I'm wrong about that last bit on the language. That appears to be proposed language for the national HR, not passed language for Tennessee. I read it wrong. And I'm pretty good at web sleuthing. Haven't searched the right language apparently. I still maintain there has to be a provision to insure that the ability to dodge a subpoena isn't based on your ability to get online and click a box. It's probably a good time to remind everyone that I have REPEATEDLY said there should be conditional protections for bloggers, they just shouldn't instantly get coverage when they sign up for a blogspot account and start posting things their grandma told them.
Or, in my case that they misgoogled.
Sorry for the error (but stil no sorries for Silence and Bob). We need strong shield laws and they will go away.
Posts
|