I have previously discussed the curiosity of California’s Democratic leaders in Congress leading the fight for massive warrantless surveillance and attacks on privacy. California Senator Dianne Feinstein has long been viewed as hazard to civil liberties from her knowledge of the torture program to consistent support for the expansion of a security state system. Feinstein is now back in that ignoble role this week, fighting to limit the meaning of journalist to prevent bloggers and others from being able to claim protections from surveillance or compelled testimony. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has joined Feinstein in seeking to define most people out of protections for media.
The irony is the Feinstein wants to add the limiting language to a Media Shield Law that has already been riddled with exceptions and holes by the Obama Administration. Feinstein is again serving as the agent for those who want to expand government powers — in this case under the guise of a bill purportedly limiting such powers.
Feinstein came out last week by insisting that bloggers and Internet writers are not “real reporters” despite the fact that most Americans now get their news from such sites. She wants to limit the term to people who are “a salaried agent” of a media company like the New York Times or ABC News. Thus, students in media graduate programs and bloggers would not qualify. She is concerned that the law could be used by whistleblowers and others to expose unlawful conduct and then claim protections from government investigations or attacks.
She does not of course define what constitutes a salary. Would this include freelancers? I am paid by USA Today per column. Is that a salary? Is a media professor salaried as a journalist when he is paid by his school but writes in a university publication?
This blog is ranked as one of the top most visited legal blogs in the world. We have a larger audience than columns associated with various newspapers, including the Legal Times. We produce five to seven new stores each weekday. We run new stories over the weekend. We reach millions of readers each year. Most local newspapers have circulations of less than 15,000. Does it not matter how large your readership is but rather whether you receive money for the work? If so, we would have to add advertising to generate revenue to qualify while a small town newspaper with a fraction of our readership would automatically qualify. There are legitimate questions about what constitutes a journalist for constitutional or statutory protections, but Feinstein is adopting a criteria clearly designed to exclude most writers today on politics and government.
As we have discussed, this effort is part of an overall effort to strip whistleblowers and journalists of status as the Administration seeks to prosecute them. Assange is the best example. He is not a journalist but rather just an Assange.
Feinstein’s limit would be added to litany of exceptions and holes in the bill. For example, the law would allow Justice Department officials to delay notice for a period of 45 days and then ask for an extension of an additional 45 days. That would mean almost 100 days of surveillance of reporters like the controversial cases of the Obama Administration.
Feinstein would add to these limits by excluding writers for outfits like Wikileaks or even recognized reporters who are writing for blogs without direct compensation. It is part of the continued effort to distract the public with measures meant to look like reforms but actually reaffirm the power of the government like President Obama’s highly criticized “reforms” announced last Friday. Rather than limit the government, it would now become a formal exclusion of the vast majority of people covering the government from protections. This is particularly a concern with the rising criticism of mainstream media in yielding to demands of the White House in covering stories like the Snowden affair or actively mocking critics of the government. We are often informed of these programs or developments by the foreign media or the bloggers that Feinstein wants to strip of protections. It is particularly ironic coming from the Senator representing the state with the largest number of bloggers in the country. Instead of their interests, Feinstein is representing the interests of the ever-expanding system of security state offices and officials.
The government is most concerned not with traditional media, but the power of sites like Wikileaks or bloggers cover every aspect of their work. This is one reason why mainstream media is losing market share to the blogs. Readers are increasingly seeking alternatives to the source of their information. That certainly comes with a risk. There are many unreliable Internet sites and there is a great deal of bias on such sites. However, if one is to define a journalist, it would seem obvious that you would base the define on what they are actually doing as opposed to the arbitrary criteria of whether anyone is paying them directly for the work.
The problem is that the mainstream media views this emerging new media as a threat and many may privately welcome the exclusion of the competition. That would leave no one to advocate for bloggers on the Hill or in the main press. For that you would have to go to Internet and the very blogs that Feinstein is targeting in this legislation.
The most effective shield under this law will be for the government in stripping claims of protection and allowing long periods of surveillance of reporters. These exceptions and Feinstein’s effort (with Durbin) make the shield law a Trojan horse bill. To paraphrase an ancient adage for civil libertarians today, beware of Democratic leaders bearing gifts.
Could it be? BBC and maybe Aljazeera the last great bastions of American free press!?!?
Former Internet Provider Gagged by National Security Letter Recounts How He Was Silenced For 6 Years
Pt.2
The East German Stasi of the Cold War is probably a closer model than Nazi Germany. Many dispute this but seems very similar. Great movie “The Lives of Others” was a good portrait.
EXCLUSIVE: Owner of Snowden’s Email Service on Why He Closed Lavabit Rather Than Comply With Gov’t
pt.1
Even if Feinstein violates the U.S. Constitution on the “Freedom of the Press” clause of the First Amendment, what about Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly/Association and the right to petition one’s government also part of the First Amendment?
If the Bill of Rights are no longer valid for the First Amendment, then wouldn’t “Roe v. Wade” and women’s right also be in danger? Using this standard a future Congress could legislate away Supreme Court rulings if the U.S. Constitution is meaningless.
Chuck’s comment mentioning Thomas Payne is exactly right.
I might add the fear is certainly of the small press like Payne’s leading to the public ousting the current leadership. Any way to stop people like us from speaking out in a manner in which they can get away from it is going to be the present approach. It might not be a nazi Säuberung like approach but pressure and undue influence is something they are going to try and get away with.
Ross,
Campaign finance reform has been the single biggest issue related to corruption since Buckly v. Valeo and the dismantling of FECA limits. Since then, it has been the Business Plot of 1933 anew, unfolding like a slow motion fascist train wreck.
The bigger issue is Campaign Finance Reform so members of Congress put their constituents issues above their campaign contributors’ issues.
Feinstein has done some great things, but on this issue she is not representing the citizens of California and has instead sided with the industry lobbyists.
P Smith,
Godwin only applies when the analogy is false. Comparison to the fascist police state under the Nazi regime is becoming increasingly appropriate to American politics.
By Feinstein’s definition, the publishers of the White Rose were not journalists and did not deserve protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
I don’t give a flying f*** if people say “godwin”, the analogy is accurate.
Blouise,
I don’t think it’s too hard to see the man behind the curtain here, but it’s hard to blame only the puppeteer when the puppet is willing going along with having his or her strings pulled and shares in the profits (so to speak). As you say, torch time is rapidly approaching if not here already between crap like this, the domestic spying and the bullshit response to domestic spying. Putting Clapper in charge of the investigation into NSA abuses? Really? That’s insulting our intelligence at a whole new level of arrogance from the Obama Administration. “I put the fox in charge of investigating these chicken killings,” said Farmer Obama. Either he’s the dumbest man alive or the most arrogant co-conspirator imaginable.
I don’t think he’s dumb.
Would Senator Feinstein object to our qualifications for Senators? I think so…
Well, perhaps my fundamentalist friends are right about aspects of Creationism because here we have a case of a dinosaur walking among humans. The sun set long ago on “Senator” Diane Feinstein.
Members of congress and the administration fear blogs and bloggers. The whole driving force behind this effort is fear. Same is true of governments all over the world.
I let my subscription to both our local area newspapers expire, and do not get dead tree news any more. I also cancelled my cable service, except for the Internet. We can get movies with Netflix or rentals a whole lot cheaper, and there is literally nothing worth watching on the “news” channels any more. There is more news available on blogs, and a lot faster, than the MSM is willing to provide. Many news events are liveblogged from cell phones.
Back in the day, I suppose those pamphleteers like Thomas Paine wouldn’t be journalists either, because they weren’t paid and did not have subscribers.
I foresee an increase in the number and sophistication of free open source encryption programs. Not store-bought encryption that may or may not have a secret access wormhole for the NSA and its ilk, but open source codes that can be customized.
I am not surprised at Feinstein’s reaction, but I am disturbed by Durbin joining in. Time to get on his case. The way I look at it, you either have full free speech rights or you don’t. The idea that someone who gets paid by a corporation gets more rights that me is absurd and smacks of a Citizens United mentality.
Currently voting in CA, I consistently look for primary options other than Feinstein when the opportunity arises.
My first reaction was it is MSM that is controlling this. Lobbyists and $$$. Seems most laws and attempted laws have this behind them (at least anymore)
It reminds also of a conversation I had with a friend.
I did local non union dinner theater, long long ago. I got paid 20$ a weekend for 3 shows and never for rehearsals. My friend said well if you are not on Broadway you are not really a professional.
Her daughter is a odel with one of the major modeling agencies but she started in Allentown Pa doing shows for a department store. :So, then your daughter wasn;t a professional model in Allentown even though she was being paid only a little.” Oh, well, my friend said, I guess as long as you get paid you can say you are professional.”
Maybe the 1$ idea is a good one but do you have to pay yourself if it is your own blog? Ridiculousness this being the criteria.
I want some f the shrooms that they are eating…. They must be wonderful…. We all ride on a yellow submarine….. Magic carpet ride…. Rabbit…. Alice …..
So we limit these folks…. The journalist… By the urinolist…… I wonder what the administration has on these two folks….
Seven corporations–all of them right wing by definition–own every one of the (even remotely) mainstream media outlets in the U.S. These corporations own Congress, and Feinstein is one of their most loyal lapdogs (though certainly not the most cuddly.) Of course she (and her friend Obama) want to limit the freedom of the alternative press. They are the only people telling the truth.
Linda Thomas..Go to the top right of the blog page where it says “you are subscribed to …” Click on “manage.” That will take you to the WP subscribe page where you can remove this blog from your list. If you do that you will never receive another well written, well researched post from Mr. Turley again.