First Amendment and Media Shield

[FlagDayNCO]

I did not see this posted and think it is of importance.

Chuck Shumer is trying to enact into law what defines the First Amendment, in so much that they want to define who is a Journalist and only SCOTUS and Congress may decide who is worthy to be considered Media. Anyone who investigates or obtains information from sources not under the new protections will be subject to imprisonment. Not that it already doesn't happen.

Yes, it's HuffPo, but the Media in general is not playing this up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...rk&ir=New+York

WASHINGTON (AP) — A supporter of a bill to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal confidential sources said Friday the measure has the backing of the Obama administration and the support of enough senators to move ahead this year.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, spoke optimistically about prospects for the measure, identifying five Republicans who would join with Democrats and independents on a bill that he said would address a constitutional oversight.

While the first amendment protects freedom of the press, "there is no first amendment right for gathering information," Schumer said at The New York Times' Sources and Secrets Conference on the press, government and national security.

The bill was revived last year after the disclosure that the Justice Department had secretly subpoenaed almost two months' worth of telephone records for 21 phone lines used by reporters and editors for The Associated Press and secretly used a search warrant to obtain some emails of a Fox News journalist.

The Justice Department took the actions in looking into leaks of classified information to the news organizations. The AP received no advance warning of the subpoena.

Schumer discussed the bill's provisions and how, if it became law, it might affect journalist Glenn Greenwald, who reported on National Security Agency's secret surveillance based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

"It's probably not enough protections to (cover) him, but it's better than current law," Schumer said.


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.

The bill also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as "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."

While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or other social media websites by non-journalists.

The overall bill would protect reporters and news media organizations from being required to reveal the identities of confidential sources, but it does not grant an absolute privilege to journalists.

The bill makes clear that before the government asks a news organization to divulge sources, it first must go to a judge, who would supervise any subpoenas or court orders for information. Such orders would be limited, if possible, "in purpose, subject matter and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling disclosure of peripheral, nonessential or speculative information."

Schumer was asked how the bill would affect James Risen, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who is battling government efforts to force him to testify in the trial of a CIA official occused of leaking information to him.

"Under our bill, Risen would have his day in court," Schumer said.

The senator wasn't certain about the impact on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying he didn't know how Assange makes his money under the bill's definition of a "covered journalist."

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill last September on a 13-5 vote. Schumer said the measure has the support of Republican Sens. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He also noted the backing of Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch in the committee.

"I think we're going to get the bill on the floor of the Senate and pass it," said Schumer, who explained that other Republicans have concerns due to national security.

Votes are not expected until after April, however.

In the AP story that triggered one of the leak probes, the news organization reported that U.S. intelligence had learned that al-Qaida's Yemen branch hoped to launch a spectacular attack using a new, nearly undetectable bomb aboard a U.S.-bound airliner around the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death.

In the Fox News story, reporter James Rosen reported that U.S. intelligence officials had warned Obama and senior U.S. officials that North Korea would respond to a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning nuclear tests with another nuclear test.

Last month, the Justice Department announced it was revising its rules for obtaining records from the news media in leak investigations, promising that in most instances, the government will notify news organizations beforehand of its intention to do so.

The revised procedures are designed to give news organizations an opportunity to challenge any subpoenas or search warrants in federal court.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by FlagDayNCO

I did not see this posted and think it is of importance.

Chuck Shumer is trying to enact into law what defines the First Amendment, in so much that they want to define who is a Journalist and only SCOTUS and Congress may decide who is worthy to be considered Media. Anyone who investigates or obtains information from sources not under the new protections will be subject to imprisonment. Not that it already doesn't happen.

Yes, it's HuffPo, but the Media in general is not playing this up.

But that's what all progressive/socialist/communist countries do, control the media.....

Control the media you control the masses....... Hitler, Stalin and Mao did this.......... and between those three hundreds of millions were murdered, it'd the progressive/socialist/communist way......

[Sigaba]

In a letter dated 15 October 1804, Abigail Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

I cannot agree, in opinion, the the constitution ever meant to withhold from the National Government the power of self [defense], or that it could be [considered] an [infringement] of the Liberty of the press, to punish the licentiousness of it.*

According to Lester J. Cappon, Mrs. Adams's view reflected the position held among Federalists that the First Amendment did not constrain Congress from passing laws against sedition.**

In a letter dated 15 July 1817, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

When People talk of the Freedom of Writing Speaking or thinking, I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists: but I hope it will exist. But it must be hundreds of years after you and I shall write and speak no more.***

For his part, Jefferson had a slightly different view on the first amendment. In a letter to Abigail Adams dated 11 September 1804, the Sage of Monticello argued:

Nor does the opinion of the unconstitutionality and consequent nullity of that law [against sedition] remove all restraint from the overwhelming torrent of slander which is confounding all vice and virtue, all truth and falsehood in the US. The power to do that is fully possessed by the several state legislatures. It was reserved to them, and was denied to the general government, by the constitution according to our construction of it. While we deny that Congress have a right to [control] the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so. They have accordingly, all of them, made provisions for punishing slander, which those ho have time and inclination resort to for the vindication of their characters.****

__________________________________________________ ___________
* Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 15 October 1804, as printed in Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail Adams and John Adams (1959, reprint; Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1987), 281-282.
** Ibid., 282 fn 28.
*** John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 15 July 1817, as printed in ibid., 519.
**** Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 11 September 1804, as printed in ibid., 279

[tonyz]

Pelosi, Obama and Hillary have weighed in on Schumer’s bill... The “Free Flow of Information Act."

"We've got to pass the The 'Free Flow of Information Act' to find out what's in the The 'Free Flow of Information Act'" NP

"If you like your 'Free Flow of Information' you can keep your 'Free Flow of Information.'
Period." BHO

"I remember reading the text of Chucky's bill under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at LaGuardia, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our meeting at the New York Times." HRC

Maybe we should have a law defining a "real" Senator...all NY libs ineligible...

[35NCO]

There briefly was a bill a few years ago where a Dem wanted to ban anonymous comments on the internet. So that they would know whom was saying assumedly bad things about the government and its personnel. For what purpose, she would not say.

Freedom of press....as long as you say nice things about the administration. Sounds like they are trying to ban guys like Matt Drudge.

[Sigaba]

From the American Journalism Review's archives <<LINK>>.

T HERE WAS NO SHORTAGE of upbeat coverage when Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate. Time magazine offered up one of the most glowing portrayals of the former defense secretary and Wyoming congressman, comparing Cheney to "a gray sheriff from some late-period Clint Eastwood western, riding out of retirement to drive off the rascals who'd plundered his town."

But less than a decade ago, the "rascals" that Cheney was driving off were journalists--among them Time photographer Wesley Bocxe. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when Cheney was running the Pentagon, Bocxe was detained for 30 hours and blindfolded by U.S. National Guard troops because he violated Defense Department press coverage restrictions.

The Pentagon rules were characterized in an April 1991 letter signed by many prominent journalists--including Time's Washington bureau chief at the time, Stan Cloud--as giving Pentagon personnel "virtual total control...over the American press" and enabling them to disregard "the role of independent journalism that is...vital for our democracy." Time's then-managing editor, Henry Muller, wrote Cheney in January 1991, shortly after the war started, charging that the restrictions were "unacceptable" and marked "the formal re-imposition of censorship for the first time since Korea in an actual wartime situation."

Time was not the only news organization suffering from amnesia about Cheney's tenure in the Defense Department. CNN's Bill Headline also signed the impassioned 1991 letter from media executives, complaining that Cheney's policies "blocked, impeded or diminished" the "flow of information to the public" during the gulf war.
But by July 2000, all seemed to have been forgotten or forgiven. Wolf Blitzer, anchor for CNN's "Late Edition," welcomed Cheney to the July 30 program, saying, "We're very happy to see you back in politics." Blitzer reminded viewers he had covered the Pentagon during the gulf war and told them Cheney is "a man who speaks forthrightly."

In the eight weeks after Cheney was nominated to be the GOP vice presidential candidate, almost no mainstream journalist--with the exception of Newsday's Patrick J. Sloyan--discussed Cheney's decision to instigate press rules that enabled the Pentagon to control information about the 1989 invasion of Panama and the 1991 gulf war. Nor did reporters explore what the press restrictions might indicate about Cheney's attitudes toward the public's right to know, a fundamental precept of democracy.
[...]

MOO, focusing scorn solely upon the Democratic Party on issues centering around governmental control of the media and subsequent impact upon freedom of the press is politically short sighted. YMMV.

[Peregrino]

When you have skin in the game, you can boo-hoo about how reporters are treated by the military in a combat zone. Personally, I'm in favor of WWII style restrictions with GHQ PAOs passing out press releases. And summary execution of spies, subversives, and saboteurs (most reporters). But that's in time of war. It's not the question posed in this thread.

The question at the root of this thread is "does the government get to define who receives 1st Amendment protections in the US?". I say NO. And I think the founding fathers would largely agree with me. If you want an adversarial press, even Bush II had it easy compared to Jefferson, Jackson, and others in the early years of the Republic. I've no idea why the current administration has their panties in such a wad about the rights and privileges of reporters. On the whole, they've been treated with kid gloves, their every agenda slavishly promoted, and every scandal dutifully buried/ignored; they could ask for no better accomplice. The few malcontents; e.g. Fox and Internet bloggers, that these laws would target are largely inconsequential. Yet they are the very reason the 1st Amendment exists - to preserve the dissenting voice. So again - I shout NO!

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

The question at the root of this thread is "does the government get to define who receives 1st Amendment protections in the US?". I say NO. And I think the founding fathers would largely agree with me. If you want an adversarial press, even Bush II had it easy compared to Jefferson, Jackson, and others in the early years of the Republic. I've no idea why the current administration has their panties in such a wad about the rights and privileges of reporters. On the whole, they've been treated with kid gloves, their every agenda slavishly promoted, and every scandal dutifully buried/ignored; they could ask for no better accomplice. The few malcontents; e.g. Fox and Internet bloggers, that these laws would target are largely inconsequential. Yet they are the very reason the 1st Amendment exists - to preserve the dissenting voice. So again - I shout NO!

First, as a former student of two pre-eminent scholars of Jacksonian America,* I am obligated to point out that the Age of Jackson is not considered a part of the "early years of the Republic." The former is roughly considered to have fallen between the election of 1828 and c.1845 while the latter term describes the interval between 1873 and 1815.**

Second, if the founding fathers would largely agree with the position staked out in your post, what accounts for the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts or the position staked out by Thomas Jefferson quoted above?

Third, your initial comments in your post raise several questions.

Originally Posted by Peregrino

When you have skin in the game, you can boo-hoo about how reporters are treated by the military in a combat zone. Personally, I'm in favor of WWII style restrictions with GHQ PAOs passing out press releases. And summary execution of spies, subversives, and saboteurs (most reporters). But that's in time of war. It's not the question posed in this thread.

• How does Ms. Sharkey's piece, from 2000 not discuss the broader issues of governmental-media relations raised in other posts in this thread?
• If it is inappropriate for a Democratic administration and its supporters in Congress to contemplate ways to still debate (by defining who is or isn't a journalist), then how is it appropriate for a Republican administration to use its authority to prevent debate from happening at all (by limiting access to information)?
• Does it advance the interests of the United States to argue that only those who have "skin in the game" should have a say in how an important component of civil military relations is managed during times of war?
  • Did the founding fathers believe that matters of military effectiveness should trump other considerations?
    • If so, then why, when they were still the king's subjects, did they not simply pay the necessary costs and remain under the protection of the British army and navy?
    • If so, then why did colonial Americans consistently make choices that undermined the young nation's military effectiveness?

______________________________________________
* With flashing eyes and cutting wit, Donald B. Cole sparked my interest in Jackson America while Charles Sellers, with unsteady gait and endlessly droning voice, ended it.
** For those who might think that such distinctions are simply a matter of historiographical interest, I point to Noah Webster's belief that "Jacksonism" marked the end of America and those values upon which it was founded. Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (New York: W.W. Norton, 2005), 3-4. For similar examples of contemporaneous views of Andrew Jackson, see Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston, New York, and London: Little, Brown, and Company, 1949), 3-4; David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, Henry Clay: The Essential American (New York: Random House, 2010), 213-214.

[Penn]

I've no idea why the current administration has their panties in such a wad about the rights and privileges of reporters.

Herr Schumer et al., the ruling elite, have truly embraced self-preservation. Joseph Gobbles stated the concept of truth and its relationship to government succinctly:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Creating one less discussion point for the biggest threat to the ruling elite:dissemination of information obtained to expose them. Defining what future Snowden's are not, allows for thier arrest, prosecution and silence.

[miclo18d]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

First, as a former student of two pre-eminent scholars of Jacksonian America,* I am obligated to point out that the Age of Jackson is not considered a part of the "early years of the Republic." The former is roughly considered to have fallen between the election of 1828 and c.1845 while the latter term describes the interval between 1873 and 1815.**

Second, if the founding fathers would largely agree with the position staked out in your post, what accounts for the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts or the position staked out by Thomas Jefferson quoted above?

Third, your initial comments in your post raise several questions.

• How does Ms. Sharkey's piece, from 2000 not discuss the broader issues of governmental-media relations raised in other posts in this thread?
• If it is inappropriate for a Democratic administration and its supporters in Congress to contemplate ways to still debate (by defining who is or isn't a journalist), then how is it appropriate for a Republican administration to use its authority to prevent debate from happening at all (by limiting access to information)?
• Does it advance the interests of the United States to argue that only those who have "skin in the game" should have a say in how an important component of civil military relations is managed during times of war?
  • Did the founding fathers believe that matters of military effectiveness should trump other considerations?
    • If so, then why, when they were still the king's subjects, did they not simply pay the necessary costs and remain under the protection of the British army and navy?
    • If so, then why did colonial Americans consistently make choices that undermined the young nation's military effectiveness?

______________________________________________
* With flashing eyes and cutting wit, Donald B. Cole sparked my interest in Jackson America while Charles Sellers, with unsteady gait and endlessly droning voice, ended it.
** For those who might think that such distinctions are simply a matter of historiographical interest, I point to Noah Webster's belief that "Jacksonism" marked the end of America and those values upon which it was founded. Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (New York: W.W. Norton, 2005), 3-4. For similar examples of contemporaneous views of Andrew Jackson, see Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston, New York, and London: Little, Brown, and Company, 1949), 3-4; David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, Henry Clay: The Essential American (New York: Random House, 2010), 213-214.

Straw an argument. The military is under no obligation to allow 1st Amendment rights in a foreign country during war. In effect a war zone is under martial law. Journalists are more than welcome to find their own way into a war zone and report what they want without support from the military.

The 1st Amendment only protects Americans in America.

As far as the alien and sedition act goes. It was a political maneuver, very disastrous politically, and allowed to die.

What about another act.... The Sedition Act of 1918. Brought to you by the father of progressivism.

[Box]

This type of thing could NEVER happen in America.
-aren't we to well informed and progressive for the government to rob us of free speech?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

This type of thing could NEVER happen in America.
-aren't we to well informed and progressive for the government to rob us of free speech?

The Nixon Administration and the so-called Pentagon Papers redux?

Richard

[Box]

Nixon doesn't count...
...everyone knows he is the poster child for evil republication opressors bent on world domination. Besides, he was defeated in part by a tremendous legal effort put forth by our nations first female president.

Nixon dont count

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Richard

The Nixon Administration and the so-called Pentagon Papers redux?

Richard

At the time the Pentagon Papers were classified.

SnT

Working again at Rand, Ellsberg managed to procure, photocopy, then return a large number of classified or top-secret papers regarding the conduct of the war.

On June 28, 1971, Ellsberg publicly surrendered at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston. He was charged with theft, conspiracy, and espionage.

www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1871.htmland

[Richard]

And I thought the topic was the "First Amendment and Media Shield".

Along those lines - in brief - the “Pentagon Papers” were published by the NYT (as 'The History of the U.S. Decision Making Process in Vietnam') as thousands of docs, cables, position papers, and memos going back to the Truman Administration and revealed a history of deceptions, policy disagreements over four administrations, and outright lies. The papers did not cover the Nixon Administration, but it soon realized that if something this classified could be leaked, so could other secrets – and the release of the information had an inflammatory affect in fueling the growing antiwar sentiment.

The Nixon White House first tried to bully the NYT into halting publication with the AG threatening the paper with espionage charges. When the threat was ignored, the WH tried the courts and received a temp injunction blocking further publication. But the WaPo and Boston Globe also began running the docs, and a federal court injunction to halt them led to the SCOTUS – where a 6-3 decision found in favor of the newspapers upon First Amendment grounds.

Richard