Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Bush Admin: Don't Protect Bloggers

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

June 14, 2007, 6:06 PM

The Bush administration is none too happy with legislation that is making its way through Congress which could shield many news gatherers from revealing their confidential sources, calling it a security risk.

The Free Flow of Information Act protects many, including bloggers, from prosecution for refusing to reveal their sources. The Justice Department says the law could hamper criminal investigations and pose a risk to national security.

Such a law would make it much tougher for investigators and the government to jail those who refuse to identify their sources. Two recent high profile examples of this are the New York Times' Judith Miller and blogger Josh Wolf.

At a hearing Thursday, assistant attorney general for Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy Rachel brand called the law's definition of a journalist so broad that "it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web."

Similar laws exist in 49 states and Washington, DC however they do not shield journalists from federal prosecution. Congress has tried in the past to pass similar laws, but the Justice Department has successfully lobbied against it.

In some circumstances the law does not provide protection, such as when it involves criminal behavior, risks to national security, or the disclosure of trade secrets or personal information that could violate an existing law.

Supporters of the bill say it's less about protecting the journalist than the public's "right to know."

Add a Comment (31 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Program86

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 5:07 PM

Way to go BUSH and Republicans, trying to take away people's basic rights. And they wonder why they have a 29% approval rating. BWAHAHAH

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 15, 2007 - 2:51 PM

"The Justice Department says the law could hamper criminal investigations and pose a risk to national security."

"Similar laws exist in 49 states and Washington, DC however they do not shield journalists from federal prosecution. Congress has tried in the past to pass similar laws, but the Justice Department has successfully lobbied against it."

Now that I think about it...how is the Justice Department = The Bush Administration allova sudden? I assume that by saying that it also means that all of the house and senate are part of the Bush Administration as well?

I love it when the headlines in these things are chosen specifically to spark controversy, whether they imply something that is true or not. Technically it is correct, but everyone here is left believing "Bush and his cronies" are personally 100% behind this campaign. Perhaps he is, but he doesn't force the Justice Dept. to say what they said, even if it was his idea.

Score: 0

By ThomasBosley

posted Jun 17, 2007 - 9:51 AM

No.

The Justice Department is an Executive branch Department, thereby operating under the exclusive control of the Chief Executive -- i.e. the President. Justice Department = Bush administration.

The House and Senate, on the other hand, are Congressional bodies, which, in the American tripartite system of government, are independent of the Executive branch.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 15, 2007 - 1:03 PM

Interesting. I wonder what everyone would think about this issue if the words "Bush Administration" and "national security" weren't in it?

Do not assume that everything Bush does is evil--nor assume that everything he does is correct. Most of us are missing the point of this: journalists get sheilding because they are part of the press. Bloggers, however, I would not consider them to be of the "press" unless they specifically work with or for a specific news organisation.

Here's the problem. Let's pretend that I hate gazelem67 (I don't by the way, you're just the comment I read last), so I decide to get a blog site that accuses him of whatever horrible things that he is doing--but he isn't really doing them. I then proceed to tell readers that I obtained the information from "undisclosed sources" close to him, but in reality I'm just making up bullsh!t.

Now, if I were considered a journalist, I'd be sheilded from any defamation lawsuits, etc., but since I'm just a web surfer that happens to hate gazelem67 (again just an example), I can claim he was the one who destroyed the Suni Mosk in Iraq and there isn't a dam thing he can do to me.

Now, in journalism, fellow journalists can hold other journalists accountable for such things and ultimately ruin that journalists career. As a blogger, however, I can never be shut out of the blogging community unless I lose my right to post on the internet. Sure, journalists can discredit me, point me out as the liar I am, but any damage I may cause as a result of my attacks is still shielded because I was "blogging", and therefore have the same rights as a professional journalist.

See how this could be a problem? Again, if a journalist has a blog and attacks someone on the blog then they should remain under the shield laws, but only because they are journalists, and not because they have a blog.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 1:45 PM

Shield laws do not shield a journalist from lawsuits. "Executive privilege" does that. Shield laws are primarily in place so a journalist can protect, or "shield" their source of information. Many times, that shield law is the only way a government or corporate employee is able to divulge information the public needs to know. Without shield protection, that individual would lose their job in a second. Shield laws have protected many "whistleblowers" who have brought about a lot of positive change.

If shield laws were so bad, we would not see 49 states, plus the District of Columbia with them....while only the federal government fails to offer the protection.

In oppressive societies, professional journalists are those people approved by the government to be able to speak. Fail to follow the official government stand and you will not be licensed nor allowed to practice your profession. In many of those societies, were it not for bloggers and people willing to risk their lives smuggling information outside, there would be no opposition or truth available.

If a blogger is so far out in their dissemination of information that they lose credibility, they will also lose their following. The definition of "press" has changed drastically from what existed even ten years ago. That has been noted even by most professional press groups. Technology is changing the definition and protection must change along with it.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 15, 2007 - 2:03 PM

Ah, I was hoping for an intelligent response like this one. Again, I want to emphasize that I am not saying that a blog must always reside outside of the shielding laws, but only that when an individual with no credibility starts a blog, that should not automatically grant them immunity to defamation lawsuits.

I am also not against blogging at all--only that if those unqualified to make extraordinary statements that portray something untrue to be truth, and then hide behind "undisclosed sources"--what qualifies them to have such protection? I can ruin your reputation on a blog and claim I found information from your undisclosed friends, and you can't do a thing about it?

Again, if I were a journalist, or worked for CBS, NBC, CNBC, or whatever, then I should be under the protection--but as an individual? What gives me that right as an individual, and not a news organisation, etc.?

If Bush is saying that even journalists in blogs cannot be shielded then I agree with you guys 100%--a blog is just another media outlet, and that doesn't change anything about the Freedom of the Press (I saw no excemption clause that said unless they post on the Internet :). No disagreements there. But shouldn't there be at leasrt some sort of qualification(s) for a John Doe before he is able to slander whomever he wishes and being fully protected under the "Freedom of the Press"?

All I'm saying is that writing on a Blog IN AND OF ITSELF does not automatically mean you are a member of the press...or does it?

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 6:19 PM

No, one should not be able to slander another under the guise of journalism. I agree. However, the shield law does nothing to protect a journalist or blogger from legal action for slander. Slander suits routinely take place in all 49 states and D.C. which have shield laws. The shield law merely protects a journalist from ending up in jail for contempt of court, when refusing to disclose a protected source from exposure. That is often very necessary. With sources, a journalist is only as good as their word to a source.

If a journalist or blogger becomes a defendant in a slander case, and the journalist chooses to defend the charge, which would require the protected source to come forward in open court, that would have to be an agreement between the journalist and the source.

Bloggers and journalists alike are open to the potential for slander suits, if they do not have their facts together, which they should be. That would include a journalist with CBS, NBC, CNBC or anyone else. However, a journalist with a large service such as that generally will be protected with blanket protection through insurance, just as a homeowner would carry homeowners insurance, should someone be injured on their property.

I hate to be so overly wordy on this, but it's the only way I can find to make the point of shield laws as merely protection of journalists sources, rather than a license to slander. As such, I'll have to cite a few examples, from personal experience.

As I had stated earlier, I was a journalist in Africa for several years. During that time, I worked freelance, as well as for an African government as Sr. Editor of their national news service.

I had many sources at the time, under the old South African government. Some sources were South African government employees, while other sources were "terrorists," with the ANC. Often, it was walking a fine line..and without the trust of both, many stories would have remained unreported. Only that mutual trust of source protection could get you the tip you needed. Incidentally, those "terrorists" are the South African government today.

On one occasion, a South African soldier, operating in Angola, provided me with personal, classified (by South African law), photographs of absolute abuse of Angolan fighters. Totally outside of all international law and convention. In my judgment, they were too hot for publication in Africa. I ended up opting to get them to a British contact, where they did reach publication. Again, without that trust in protecting a source, the South African soldier would most likely have been executed for treason right there in Angola. Probably without a trial. A breach of national security? Yeah...I suppose so, in the minds of South African government officials. A breach of human rights? Absolutely!

Even here in the U.S....at one time, while working in local media, I had a good source within a police department. A cousin, who was rather high ranking there. On several occasions, he gave me information not obtainable from other sources, knowing that the shield laws would protect both of us from him losing his job of better than twenty years.

In Zimbabwe today, there are only two kinds of journalists. Official government propagandists and "bloggers," if you will, who risk their lives every day to get the truth out of the country. Many have been caught, tortured, imprisoned or killed. Government goons bombed the presses of the only independent news service in the country...The Daily News...and imprisoned and tortured most of the staff. One executive of the paper fled the country and is in exile here in the U.S., having obtained a Pulitzer Prize. He was tortured there, as well.

Given the available options, I'll personally choose the Shield Law and deal with irresponsible journalists and bloggers alike, through the legal system. We have a remedy for libel and slander in the courts, there to be used and judged by a jury. States have shown that Shield Laws work and the federal government needs to follow suit.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 1:43 PM

I'm sorry. Did Bush did anything good? Not for his buddies, but for the country.

Score: 0

By CarLox

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 7:43 PM

redneck>?

Score: 0

By gazelem67

edited Jun 15, 2007 - 8:51 AM

Look, I'm a staunch conservative and Republican (no they aren't the same thing) and I think this is way, way, way off the reservation for him. What I find sad is that the most effective "side" in the blogging community is conservative blogging. Look what happened to Dan Rather as a result of bloggers pointing out his (producer's) fraudulent story?

Freedom of Speech (especially political speech) helps everyone, left or right. That's why it is sacrosanct.

And frankly, as a constructionist, I too am tired of "national security" as an excuse my any administration (Clinton did it too) to a) not disclose whatever they choose and b) go around any law that is inconvenient.

Strong power to the states, weak power to the feds. That's what this country was built on and every administration turns the executive branch even closer to the politburo.

Score: 0

By DeadFly

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 12:43 PM

Wow, you seem reasonable for a Republican... why can't your party put people in office that don't want to wipe their a** with the constitution?

Score: 0

By Hurmoth

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 11:46 AM

I'm a conservative and agree with you as well. I understand the need to keep some things from the public, you certainly don't want to release things that could help our enemies out, but I agree that way to much is hidden from the American people because of "national security." I am so fed up with all politics it isn't funny anymore, both sides have turned their backs on the American people. They're all trying to help themselves, not us and it is high time that changes.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 15, 2007 - 2:57 PM

"I am so fed up with all politics it isn't funny anymore, both sides have turned their backs on the American people. They're all trying to help themselves, not us and it is high time that changes."

Amen to that. Heck, look at the Republican candidates for President 2008--most of them don't even agree with each other, much less the American people. I can't say from experience, but I'm also guessing that there are at least some Democrats that aren't too fond of Hilary or Obama either.

Forget America--politicians aren't even receiving the full support of their own political party either, so there's not even a chance of a chance of a chance they'll have the support of the American people. It's pathetic.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 7:46 PM

It is pathetic and I could not agree more with your assessment. We have the largest field of candidates I can recall in many years, on both tickets. And out of both parties, it is difficult to even find a glimmer of understanding of the average American's thoughts and needs.

I remember when John Kennedy was running for President and all the whispers about his religion. Nothing was really said aloud, it was all in hushed tones, yet the apprehension was there. I recall my outspoken, anti-Catholic grandmother stating that if he was elected, surely he would bring the Pope to Washington to run the government.

Now, so many years later, it seems that religion and religious beliefs are highlighted nearly as much as the war in Iraq, health care concerns, immigration and Social Security. One would almost think we were selecting a preacher instead of a President.

It seems to me that we should be able to find enough issues to face with candidates, without focusing on non-issues such as religion. We need someone who will address the needs of the people in this country ahead of their personal philosophy and beliefs. Leave that to each individual to choose.

As you point out, candidates cannot even seem to find a common ground among themselves, let alone relate to the people.

For myself, I haven't found one single candidate, of either party, I feel can take this country in a positive new direction. It will once again come down to voting against someone, rather than for someone. I'm sure I'm not alone in that thought.

And once more, money and "personal appeal" will most likely provide us with a President. If only more people would put as much effort into seeking a Presidential candidate as they do an "American Idol" candidate...we might get going in the right direction.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 9:58 AM

I'm a staunch liberal and I completely agree with you!:)

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Jun 16, 2007 - 12:18 PM

Bush - Uniter, not Divider! ;o)

Score: 0

By kprovance

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 8:00 AM

Yeah...this coming from an administration that does nothing but protect criminals a/k/a it's own members. It does not surprise me this lame excuse for a president wants to curb freedom of speech. What better way to protect his own law breakers from exposure.

1984 anyone?

Score: 0

By kashin

edited Jun 15, 2007 - 4:29 AM

These days everything is "a risk to national security" and can be shot down by the Bush administration. Conversely, anything they want to do that is obviously wrong or unconstitutional is always hidden under the blanket of "fighting terrorism." Basically, Bush and his cronies get to do anything they like, as long as they proclaim it's done to fight terrorism. They can also stop you from doing anything they don't want you to do, because it's a risk to national security. America is going to hell in a hand basket. The worst part is that a lot of Americans don't see anything wrong with being stripped of your rights and civil liberties. Patriot Act anyone? It's easy to tell something is wrong with a country's government when journalists and anyone else who speaks out against the actions of their president and the administration is suddenly labeled "un-American" or told they're supporting terrorism. Even The Dixie Chicks were chastised for speaking the truth, if anyone still remembers.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 6:00 AM

Reminds me of the days of the Cold War when they did the same with the all-purpose excuse of "National Security" as well. Republicans sure hate freedom when they can't control it and make sure that it is only their freedoms that count.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 7:32 AM

Ah, yes. Then, it was "Communists," while today it's "terrorists." It's sad that so many people have such short memories or fail to actually read history.

In order for a government to keep the "sheep" in line and marching to the official beat, an enemy is necessary. That dreaded, unseen enemy and our plan for defeating them....which of course we know nothing about because it's "secret."

During the Cold War, the sheep were kept busy building home fallout shelters, looking under their beds every night to make sure a Communist wasn't hiding there....and fine "patriots" like Sen. "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy taught us the difference between patriots and Communist sympathizers.

Times don't really change...political tactics don't really change.....we just plug in a new name for the enemy and feed it to a new generation of sheep.

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 10:22 AM

I agree completely. I am sick of Bush saying everything falls under "National Security". The only thing we are missing is the government trials where Americans name other Americans as terrorists. Otherwise, it would be just like McCarthy.

Wasn't it Jefferson who said that those who serve to inhibit freedoms do not deserve those freedoms in the first place?

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others."

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 10:58 AM

Well, the John Ashcroft "Terrorism Information and Prevention System" (TIPS) would have made Joe McCarthy proud, had the Bush Administration been able to implement it. We would have Americans naming other Americans as possible terrorists. In one of the rare cases where sanity prevailed, the program never really began.

I find it quite ironic that some of the world's greatest despot leaders, such as President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, when imposing some of the most draconian legislation one could imagine, merely cite President Bush, stating that their repressive legislation is necessary to fight terrorism and crime.

Score: 0

By lizwolfspada

edited Jun 14, 2007 - 7:21 PM

To not protect people who publish on the web would be like passing a law that protected radio journalism and not TV in the late 1940's.

A bad law that is not inclusive is worse than no law at all.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 15, 2007 - 1:20 PM

"To not protect people who publish on the web would be like passing a law that protected radio journalism and not TV in the late 1940's."

No, because the FCC regulates both, and an individual cannot simply broadcast on either without considerable effort and financial support. Internet blogs though? Just get a free GoDaddy.com page and you're set. A 13 year old living under an overpass could do it--legally.

Difference is: what's journalism and what isn't? If I posted something here on Betanews that hurt someones character--well, not a perfect example I guess--but point is where is the line drawn? Can I destroy people's lives and not be held accountable? As an individual, this would be incorrect, because you could slap a defamation/slander lawsuit on me.

When is a "blog" a journalist entity and when isn't it? This is the better question, and one that I wish we could more clearly answer.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 8:41 PM

A nation which does not offer shield laws for journalists does not truly have freedom of the press. As a former professional journalist, I have to consider even Bloggers to be journalists, as well. Many I've read are perhaps more "professional" than some of the mainstream press.

If you want to see what suppressing the press and their sources leads to, do a bit of searching on Zimbabwe and the press. Eventually, that leads a country down the road to where government will decide and register journalists, leaving nothing but government approved voices. Oh yes...and President Mugabe of Zimbabwe cites the need to control journalists as a means to protect national security, halt criminal behavior and "fight terrorism," too. That's become the "catchall mantra" for anything a government fears.

And yes, I worked as a journalist in Zimbabwe...at the time of their independence...and I've seen it firsthand.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 8:18 PM

"The Justice Department says the law could hamper criminal investigations and pose a risk to national security."

These guys are so full of sh*t that I can smell em from here.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 6:02 AM

Yeah, Libby going to Club Fed is going to be a real punishment... [Note: Sarcasm]

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 7:47 PM

Well, at least one criminal who revealed a CIA agent's identity is behind bars. Maybe Bush would clean out the other criminals in his admin first? Nahgonnahappen. Bye bye Libby boy!

Conservatives hate the truth, and they spend their lives railing against the constitution!

Score: 0

By melkor

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 3:37 AM

As long as Bush is in the house, he won't be able to clear them all out :p

Score: 0

By ajadoniz

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 8:37 PM

he's not behind bars, yet.

Score: 0

By kcisobderf

posted Jun 17, 2007 - 9:24 PM

If it weren't for 'Deep Throat", we would never had found out about Watergate.

Can't we just line these a******s up against the wall? They need killin'.

Score: 0

Dec 1 - 9:34 PM ET Alltel breaks in a mobile wallet with mFoundry

Dec 1 - 7:38 PM ET Intel tries to turn the tables on AMD in document discovery dispute

Dec 1 - 6:59 PM ET Palm to restructure yet again, may cut more jobs

Dec 1 - 4:58 PM ET Blockbuster downloads headed for more devices via Live Mesh

Dec 1 - 4:55 PM ET AOL's PlaySavvy speaks to game-shy parental units

Dec 1 - 4:41 PM ET Less bad news than anticipated for the semiconductor industry in 2008

Dec 1 - 3:51 PM ET 'Xohm' makes way for 'Clear,' as Sprint/Clearwire merger moves ahead

Dec 1 - 2:01 PM ET Chasing down the latest Cyber Monday tech deals

Dec 1 - 12:50 PM ET Will 'Cyber Monday' fare better than a weak 'Black Friday?'

Dec 1 - 12:38 PM ET Microsoft Cashback goes offline to Black Friday shoppers