Edging closer to banning free speech.
B*sh is edging ever closer to outlawing free speech. This time it comes in the form of splitting hairs over the definition of "journalist". The Republicans are trying to force through a federal reporter's shield law, which would shield reporters from having to give up the names of their sources.
HR581 and an identical Senate bill, S340 are a double-edge sword. On the one hand, it means that the government can influence reporters to tell the news as the government sees fit, safe in the knowledge that the shield law means the reporter won't give up his source, thus the government could never be implicated in controlling the news.
On the other hand, the wording of the law is such that it would exclude bloggers, freelancers and all journalists "without contracts or those who publish solely on the web". Oddly enough, all the types of journalism which are free of the desire to tell the news as the government would like. Freelancers and bloggers are where the free speech and actual news is reported. Check out my ramblings as a prime example and I'm nowhere near the profile of some dedicated political bloggers. But the implication of this law is that if you write something in your blog and the government doesn't like it, you can be prosecuted because the shield law doesn't apply to you.
These bills are gaining momentum, thanks in part to last week's high-profile case involving an anonymous source who unveiled the identity of an undercover CIA agent. The "anonymous source" is suspected to be Karl Rove after Time magazine folded and handed over the identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller is so far resisting and because of this, faces jail time. Whilst the shield law would protect reporters like Miller, it would also mean people like Rove could get away with crap like this because they knew they'd be safe from prosecution.
"Write anything you like, as long as its what the government want you to write."
HR581 and an identical Senate bill, S340 are a double-edge sword. On the one hand, it means that the government can influence reporters to tell the news as the government sees fit, safe in the knowledge that the shield law means the reporter won't give up his source, thus the government could never be implicated in controlling the news.
On the other hand, the wording of the law is such that it would exclude bloggers, freelancers and all journalists "without contracts or those who publish solely on the web". Oddly enough, all the types of journalism which are free of the desire to tell the news as the government would like. Freelancers and bloggers are where the free speech and actual news is reported. Check out my ramblings as a prime example and I'm nowhere near the profile of some dedicated political bloggers. But the implication of this law is that if you write something in your blog and the government doesn't like it, you can be prosecuted because the shield law doesn't apply to you.
These bills are gaining momentum, thanks in part to last week's high-profile case involving an anonymous source who unveiled the identity of an undercover CIA agent. The "anonymous source" is suspected to be Karl Rove after Time magazine folded and handed over the identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller is so far resisting and because of this, faces jail time. Whilst the shield law would protect reporters like Miller, it would also mean people like Rove could get away with crap like this because they knew they'd be safe from prosecution.
"Write anything you like, as long as its what the government want you to write."
Comments