9 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Y)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(N) Bloggers are not journalist and don't deserve the same protection IMO

How are they not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.