Pirate's Cove

As if the shamnesty fiasco wasn’t bad enough, now W is going after bloggers (hat tip to my good on-line liberal friend, the Gun Toting Liberal)

WASHINGTON–The Bush administration on Thursday blasted a congressional proposal that would shield a broad swath of news gatherers, including some bloggers, from revealing their confidential sources.

The latest draft of the Free Flow of Information Act would pose a grave threat to national security and federal criminal investigations by protecting far too large a segment of the population, a U.S. Department of Justice official told Congress.

"The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web," Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing here. She also argued it would protect "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."

It’s a good point, however, as someone who himself had a blog, Bush should understand that blogs and other internet sites are part of the wave of the future, and deserve some protections. If they are engaged in breaking the law, then they shouldn’t be protected. It’s that simple.

On several occasions, politicians from both parties questioned whether the bill should be so expansive as to include bloggers. Some bristled at the notion that the ease of publishing online could provide cover for those who want to leak sensitive information and get away with it.

"I’d say anyone who didn’t want to face legal action would immediately try to put up a blog and try to get journalistic protection," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), adding that he hoped to work with his colleagues to refine that definition.

If it is illegal, then you put in the legislation that any shield is removed, which is what should happen with the old media, as well. No one is above the law, credentialed journalist or not

This year’s Free Flow of Information Act, which has been introduced in both the House and Senate, proposes a protection for a broader swath of people than earlier versions. It covers anyone engaged in journalism, which is defined as "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

William Safire, a longtime New York Times columnist and former Nixon administration speech writer, praised the bill’s current definition because he said it focuses on the actions characteristic of journalists, not their affiliations.

"Whether you’re a blogger or whether you’re The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you’re a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not," he said. (The New York Times, the National Association of Broadcasters and other journalism groups have endorsed the latest bill, according to its sponsors.)

Which is exactly what the folks who wrote the Constitution meant way back.

I’m not sure if I agree witht GTL’s assesment of tyranny; I choose to look at it as stupidtery among the national federal figures. Look at the shamnesty fiasco!