RSS
Latest Attempt To Create Federal Journalism Shield Law May Carve Wikileaks Out Of The Protections
from the petty,-much? dept
With so much attention getting paid to Wikileaks lately -- and with some politicians insisting that the site is guilty of treason, it should come as little surprise that no US politician wants to be seen proposing a law that somehow helps Wikileaks. We've written in the past about the (very much needed) effort to create a federal shield law for journalists, allowing them to protect their sources. Of course, part of the issue is who counts as a "journalist." In the past there's been a lot of back and forth and back and forth over whether or not "amateur" journalists could qualify -- but one thing that the folks working on the bill now want to make sure: it won't apply to Wikileaks (sent in by paperbag).
Apparently Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are quickly drafting a special amendment that says the law wouldn't apply to "websites that serve as a conduit for the mass dissemination of secret documents." That's obviously targeted directly at Wikileaks, but it certainly could impact other sites that store documents as well, and that could create problems. I understand the political reasoning behind this, but it seems silly and only likely to cause more problems. And, of course, it won't have any real impact on Wikileaks anyway. Not only is the organization not based in the US, but it designed its system to act as a technological shield law, anyway. So, the law won't impact Wikileaks, but will almost certainly end up creating unintended consequences for other sites. All for political capital. Wouldn't it be nice if we had politicians who did what's right for once, rather than what's politically expedient?
Apparently Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are quickly drafting a special amendment that says the law wouldn't apply to "websites that serve as a conduit for the mass dissemination of secret documents." That's obviously targeted directly at Wikileaks, but it certainly could impact other sites that store documents as well, and that could create problems. I understand the political reasoning behind this, but it seems silly and only likely to cause more problems. And, of course, it won't have any real impact on Wikileaks anyway. Not only is the organization not based in the US, but it designed its system to act as a technological shield law, anyway. So, the law won't impact Wikileaks, but will almost certainly end up creating unintended consequences for other sites. All for political capital. Wouldn't it be nice if we had politicians who did what's right for once, rather than what's politically expedient?
I’m looking for policy...
Application Developers Alliance Applauds Schumer Plan To Introduce Patent Legislation
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
I’m looking for research...
Who Are App Developers?
The Growing App Market
I have an app...
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
What about secret corporate documents showing corporations to either behave unethically or break laws?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Even better
I wish politicians wouldn't do anything. If they'd just sat on their fat, lazy asses for the past hundred years as the rest of us were able to progress without having to deal with the constant consequences of their actions(intended or otherwise), we'd unquestionably be better off.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even better
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Redundant
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
WikiLeaks is exposing information we're hiding from ourselves. 'National Security' is the mother of the all-encompassing political bull**** buzzword.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Three steps down the rabbit hole.
Does anyone even remember that the documents show the US committing atrocities and at best unconscionable "collateral damage"? No, it's *Wikileaks* who has "blood on their hands", not the people who are actually committing murders. It's all been *reversed* into a propaganda PLUS.
I think we're now seeing the true purpose(s) of Wikileaks, and that despite the *good* that their reputation-establishing video did, it's highly likely to be an intelligence op. The "leaked" documents tend to support starting new wars in Pakistan and Iran because the "Taliban" or whichever boogeyman is said to have moved out of Afghanistan. -- Oh, and "Bin Laden", who's been reliably reported dead for years, and certainly not seen in any verifiable way, has been resurrected as a threat.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
β... rather than whatβs politically expedient ...β
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No shield law necessary
Just like if I were to stand on a street corner and start announcing information I had uncovered, a journalist who demonstrates he has knowledge of, say, a criminal act, may very well become of interest to the proper authorities, and may in fact be a material witness.
Journalists should also be subject to all the limitations on First Amendment exercise that I am. They can't do the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. They can't defame people (i.e., they should be subject to being called to account for the truthfulness of their articles). Etc., etc., etc.
Until we can get someone like Walter Cronkite back, who was widely regarded as an objective reporter of facts and not a biased mouthpiece or sensationalist, I'm not inclined to grant any sort of privileges at all to journalists. They don't deserve 'em.
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No shield law necessary
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
reminds me of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1. Boxer
2. Pelosi
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Isn't that just about every news organization that gets a hold of an interesting/secret newsworthy document? You really think if the NYTimes didn't get the documents that they'd have put them (or the information in them) out there.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Miss America 1992 also was arrested recently for shoplifting, that may explain Palin tendencies.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wo w, this guy is a jerk.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Definition of the word treason ...
def : Treason - The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.
WikiLeaks is a Swedish organization. As such is not bound by US law but Swedish and EU law. As such Treason doesnt apply.
"websites that serve as a conduit for the mass dissemination of secret documents."
There go the whistle blower laws.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
this actually makes wikileaks happy
US senators try to gut shield bill; great! All the more leaks for us and Iceland http://nyti.ms/96bjh1 http://bit.ly/dh8bx6
wikileaks' purpose is to upset governments. political rants, grandstanding, and dubious law passing plays directly into their hands.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
hes no hero, he a traitor, and should be shot
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Treason and Traitors
On one hand, I know that most American's are smart, and not unreasonably arrogant. On the other hand - it's getting really easy to generalize American's as having no grasp of the fact that there is a world outside of America and that people who don't have any particular interest in American law or American national interest aren't necessarily part of the terrorist conspiracy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even better
Agree 100%; I'm sick of politicians telling people and companies how to do -their- business. They should be able to charge, philander, and form trusts to break unions to their hearts content.
Remember that $8,000 tax break for first time home buyers? What a waste of taxpayer money, trying to invigorate a dying market after companies wisely gave billions of dollars in loans to customers who wisely chose to accept them though they didn't actually have the money to pay for their houses...
That damn 'new deal' the history books tout, that was lame. Let people find their own jobs or starve to death, what are we communists?
Honestly, if politicians would just stay out of an otherwise perfect system, that .5% of us who managed to snake our way into positions of authority would be just fine. It's that damn 'majority' that keeps getting in the way of good old fashioned democracy.
:)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Definition of the word treason ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even better
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Expect this kind of manuevering...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
quote (of this sentence) visible on:
http://wp.me/psdI6-T0
(warning: cheesepage. recommended for bunnies.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
_[°|°]_
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment