posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:04 PM
Is the First Amendment finally under final attack to allow the US government to 'police' what is given to the citizens of the US as news? After
watching the following video it would seem so. One part is about defining who is a 'journalist' by making them someone who must be 'employed' by a
state, I mean, corporate media institution. One part of this is explained below with not being able to, as it would seem, whistleblow if you have
documents that you have acquired without authorization. So, if this happens, what rights will this give the government to prosecute and find your
source to stop the leak. Snowden anyone? Is this giving the DOJ too much power and discretion? Is this also the beginning of restricting the internet
and its ability to give alt news?
Link to Article
An amendment is moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee that would essentially allow the government to determine who is a journalist for
purposes of legal protection of sources. For purposes of protecting a source, a “journalist” under law would be anyone
Works or worked for “an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news
agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service…news program; magazine or other periodical…or through television or
radio broadcast…” These people would have to have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the
public news or information.” Opinion journalists might not be covered.
Bloggers and citizen journalists – citizens who commit acts of journalists without working for such an outlet – would not be covered, unless it
was determined that “at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or
events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” In other words, the government – the Department of Justice
– would now determine whether primary intent was news distribution or political concerns.
Those explicitly excluded from protection include those “whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity’s
work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization.” Glenn Greenwald, please
contact your lawyer.
By definition of this amendment, bloggers and other such 'free press' agencies would not be protected or able to withhold a source. Opinion
journalists? Aren't all news agencies opinion journalists in one way or another, unless they are on a government payroll at which time they are a
propoganda journalist which seems to be the model that the US is moving towards or in some cases, has attained.
Link to article
Multiple journalists are now working directly for the administration.
Why would anyone enamored enough with an Obama administration they want to go work for do anything that might make a potential employer
uncomfortable -- you know, like actually report on ObamaCare and the economy honestly, or dig into Benghazi and the IRS?
The media is left-wing and crusading enough without the potential of a cushy government job being held out as a carrot.
And don't think the Obama administration isn't doling out these jobs for a reason. What a wonderful message to send to the world of media: Don't go
too far, don't burn a bridge, don't upset us too much and there just might be a lifeline off the sinking MSM ship.
And obviously it is working.
Just like any right, once you allow the government to determine status it is a slippery slope for them to then attempt more control and oversight.
edit on 13-9-2013 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-9-2013 by matafuchs because: (no reason
edit on 13-9-2013 by matafuchs because: sp