Back off, Dick
Monday, May 27, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Via IR, Sen. Dick Durbin talks about the 1st Amendment and a media shield law…
“But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”
Durbin has tried to use this media shield issue as a not so back door way of defining who is and who is not a journalist. The federal government should not be in this business. The people we are covering should not have that sort of control over us. That “unanswered question” Durbin frets about so much ought to be up to the people themselves.
- Roadiepig - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 11:42 am:
So is Durbin saying that if a blogger uncovers some nefarious doings in the U.S. Senate through a source that wants to remain anonomous for their own protection that said blogger shouldn’t be covered by the constitutional 1st amendment protection of freedom of speech? Politicians always seem to support freedom of the press until it hits too close to home .
- 47th Ward - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 11:43 am:
Is James O’Keefe a journalist?
- hisgirlfriday - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 11:49 am:
A journalist is nothing more, nothing less, than a professional citizen.
And I always viewed the 1st amendment’s protection “of the press” more as protection of publishing/disseminating information than protection of the human beings who do the publishing/disseminating.
- Silly Me... - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 11:50 am:
Rich…. You are 100% Correct.
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 12:17 pm:
Shame on you, Senator Durbin. You can do better than this.
- Abe - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 12:17 pm:
I like Dick Durbin, but this country has major issues and the ones the good Senator choses to champion makes me scratch my head…steroids, chewing tobacco in baseball, etc
- Mason born - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 12:41 pm:
Well done rich thanks for bringing it to our attention.
- Curmudgeon - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
If journalists don’t want government defining who is a journalist, then why do they want a government-sanctioned shield law? Can’t have it both ways. Right now there is no federal constitutional protection for a journalist’s sources - that has been well-established over many decades in the caselaw.
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 12:46 pm:
You can have a shield law without strict definitions.
- wordslinger - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 1:10 pm:
The 1st Amendment isn’t confined to some arbitrary definition of journalist. I don’t understand Durbin’s problem here.
This whole nonsense of chasing leakers is a fool’s errand. Didn’t these guys learn anything from that clown school of Liddy, Hunt and Colson?
It’s hypocritical to boot. Every administration leaks classified material that makes them look good, but goes apey when stuff gets out that makes them look bad.
- Bobby Hill - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 1:57 pm:
-government should not be in this business-
People that are in other lines of work say the same thing all the time.
- Truthteller - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 2:16 pm:
I can accept the notion that all writers are journalists except for the members of the Trib editorial board whose half-truths, jumbling of facts, and outright distortions give journalism a bad name. They shield themselves from the truth. They should have no other shields.
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 2:33 pm:
Rich, are you saying Durbin has no point here and that the definition question is one of “what is being protected.” I guess I’m not sure how that would work in the real world. Obvious to me is that Rich would clearly qualify. But if I simply write a piece venting my spleen on my Facebook page, do I qualify? I mean there do seem to be a fair number of gray areas these days.
- dupage dan - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 2:44 pm:
This is sinister stuff. Durbin et al risk some serious backlash from the whole political spectrum if they keep this stuff up.
- G. Willickers - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 2:50 pm:
“Sinister stuff?” Hyperbole much?
Rich did get the quote from Ill Review after all.
I don’t know anyone who considers there snake oil to be legit journamalism.
- Curmudgeon - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 3:56 pm:
We are talking about a shield law which would protect sources from being revealed. First amendment does not apply, this would purely be a statutory exercise. If I’m blogging, and government wants to subpena me to learn the source of my information, I would have no legal basis not to comply. Statute only applies to journalists, so statute must have some definition. Otherwise everybody would claim privilege under this statute, and no grand jury could ever investigate anything. Statute could apply to every witness asked about a source of any information.Journalists already have more protection than anyone else - try suing even an irresponsible reporter for libel! So some definition of journalist is needed - they exist in various states that have enacted these source shield laws!
- LINK - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 6:17 pm:
Word,
It’s not just hypocritical but it’s elitist in nature…
- dupage dan - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 6:19 pm:
Hyperbole much? Uh, no. Suggesting that some folks don’t have the same 1st Amendment rights because the gov’t doesn’t think they have a certain status is serious business. Perhaps ominous would have been a better word but no less hyperbolic, huh? What with the AG handing out wiretapping warrants out like Halloween candy (more hyperbole IYO, I’m sure) it’s no wonder some folks are concerned. Even democrats are upset with the over-reach. But I suppose they’re engaged in some hyperbole, too.
- CrookCounty60827 - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 6:46 pm:
If the 1st Amendment were interpreted as much as the 2nd, journalists and newspapers would have to be licensed, taxed, registered, checked for truth, and any violation whatsoever would result in criminal charges. Oh, wait, that can’t happen in America….right??
- walkinfool - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 7:20 pm:
The First Amendment protects “freedom of speech, or of the press”. Does that imply that they are two different things? Or is it one broad right, and a specific key channel for that right?
Just what is “the press” in modern times? That’s a legitimate question.
A “press shield” could be more trouble than it’s worth, without a clear definition. Why would “press” be protected in ways that other citizens would not, for distributing the same information?
As to this case, Durbin’s out to lunch.
- fake county chairman - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 10:10 pm:
some body doesnt like certain news agencies
- Big Muddy - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 6:38 am:
G. Willickers, He said it on a Sunday talkie. Fox News with Wallace I think. Was doing my normal Sunday AM news surfing and saw it live so there’s that. Illinois Review was just parroting it.