Jump to content



Photo

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 zeroday

zeroday

    meh

  • 5,303 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 06
  • Location: .

Posted 08 May 2007 - 18:48

The House of Representatives has amended the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 to include provisions to protect bloggers from being required to divulge their sources under certain situations in the same way as journalists. Instead of requiring journalists to be tied to a news organization, the bill now defines "journalism" to focus more on the function of the job: "the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

Introduced last week by Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA), the bill is meant to offer a federal version of reporter "shield" laws that are in place in some 32 states in the US. Legislation at state level has struggled in the past to determine exactly how to define journalism, with bloggers who don't often write for traditional news organizations finding themselves in a murky gray area. However, in 2006, a California court ruled in favor of two rumor sites (often considered "blogs")—AppleInsider and Powerpage—after they divulged details about unreleased Apple products. The ruling concluded that there was no relevant legal distinction between journalistic blogging and journalism when it came to the shield law.


The Free Flow of Information Act was reworked after its introduction with the specific intent of including bloggers under the broader definition of journalism. According to a section-by-section analysis of the bill, "The act would apply to web logs ('blogs') that engage in journalism." Although the law is not likely meant to include every person who writes on the Internet, it doesn't create a litmus test for what constitutes "engaging in journalism."

Under the wording of the bill, journalists are protected from divulging their sources for news stories except in cases where there is imminent harm to national security, imminent death or significant bodily harm involved, a trade secret "of significant value in violation of State or Federal law," individually identifiable health information, and in instances where "nondisclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest."

The bill will likely be met with some resistance from some companies that are constantly in the spotlight—such as Apple, who has targeted bloggers in the past—but it's being supported heavily by press associations such as the Newspaper Association of America, the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press. "The bill is a carefully constructed measure which will provide a broad new and much needed privilege for reporters to refrain from revealing confidential sources," said Boucher in a statement. "Given the broad bipartisan support this measure enjoys, I am optimistic that it will be reported by the Judiciary Committee and passed by the House this year."

Source


#2 vetMichael Stanclift

Michael Stanclift

    Virtually Benevolent

  • 11,057 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 01
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: OS X 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 08 May 2007 - 19:23

(Y)

#3 Hurmoth

Hurmoth

    Neowinian Senior

  • 20,985 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 03
  • Location: Virginia

Posted 08 May 2007 - 19:27

(N) Bloggers are not journalist and don't deserve the same protection IMO

#4 vetgigapixels

gigapixels

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 02
  • Location: California, USA
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Posted 08 May 2007 - 19:34

I don't see why they shouldn't get this. Many blog sites are taken as good authorities on rumors (such as the two mentioned in the article), and if they get a scoop that other sites and news organizations don't get, they shouldn't have to reveal their source(s).

I think it's a good decision.

#5 I am Reid

I am Reid

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 05
  • Location: Columbus, Ohio

Posted 08 May 2007 - 21:21

(N) Bloggers are not journalist and don't deserve the same protection IMO


How are they not?

#6 webeagle12

webeagle12

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,237 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 04

Posted 08 May 2007 - 22:36

How are they not?


1. journalists are more annoying than bloggers :pinch:
2. Half of time they have no clue what to hell they are saying
3. There is a greater percentage that you will punch journalist a lot faster and harder than blogger

#7 Whinges

Whinges

    Neowinian

  • 190 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 02

Posted 08 May 2007 - 23:26

1. journalists are more annoying than bloggers :pinch:
2. Half of time they have no clue what to hell they are saying
3. There is a greater percentage that you will punch journalist a lot faster and harder than blogger


Though some of those blog celebrities are just as annoying. Most of them are just sploggers and brag about how great they are. :pinch:

#8 casao

casao

    Neowinian

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 03

Posted 12 May 2007 - 14:51

Some bloggers definitely should be protected, like the 2 mentioned in the article.

However, giving umbrella protection to any jerkoff who chooses to write in their blog is bull****. They need to clearly and precisely define "engaging in journalism" in the bill before it should be supported.

#9 7Dash8

7Dash8

    Veritas Aequitas

  • 597 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 06

Posted 13 May 2007 - 10:22

giving umbrella protection to any jerkoff who chooses to write in their blog is bull****. They need to clearly and precisely define "engaging in journalism" in the bill before it should be supported.



Completely agree. Any chimp can start a blog, why should they get the same protection as a journalist? A 15 year old posting garbage on their blog is not journalism.