Animal sex….

Free cartoon porn. Free porn video. Asian porn. Free incest porn. Free teen porn. Porn….

In the first place, this bill looks like a solution in search of a problem. … If Congress wants to pass a shield law to protect the journalistic process, then it needs to make sure it protects the process and not just the existing, old-school journalistic establishment.

Ed, Ed, Ed… whither your famed cynicism? The whole idea is to put pesky bloggers at the tender mercies of your betters — the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. If you’re a “real” journalist, they’ll cut you some slack. You, Allah, the boss, and the rest of the conservative pajama-clad rabble? Not so much.

For instance, just this week I have conducted the following original reporting, based on confidential sources:

Exactly my point. Did you pay proper obeisance to Congress and The One? No, you did not. You committed the sin of original reporting that embarrassed them rather than exalted them.

“Too cynical,” you say? Isn’t this the same Congress that included the probably-unconstitutional “Sanford Amendment” in the stimulus? The same gang that has, in recent days, debated whether to pass an ex post facto bill that incorporates the first bill of attainder seen in decades?

Pshaw. I channel that great philosopher Lily Tomlin: No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.

the bill focuses too much on titles and format and not at all on protecting the process it claims to serve.

It will likely lean less toward serving the process and more toward ‘process serving.’

The bill prevents judges, at least on the federal level, with charging reporters for contempt when they refuse to reveal confidential sources

The story here is NOT that bloggers wouldn’t be covered by the law, the story is that the law is unconstitutional to begin with and should be struck down immediately.

Congress may set the jurisdiction of courts, it may not usurp their constitutional powers. And compelling testimony from everyone but the accused and their spouse is a constitutionally mandated judicial power.

tommylotto on March 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM

+1

With the attorney-client privilege, we want clients to access legal representation and to be truthful with their lawyers. Everyone is entitled to such representation. It is a bedrock Constitutional principle. To serve this important public policy, we protect what one says to their lawyer. That protection comes at a cost, as the lawyer almost always becomes aware of facts that could change the outcome of a trial or other judicial dispute. Justice is impaired by all privileges. However, our society makes a determination that the privilege serves a higher principle than the justice impaired thereby. We as a society will permit (in fact require) a lawyer to keep confidences to the detriment of justice in order to preserve an individual’s access to representation. Lawyers are licensed by the state and follow an extensive code of ethics.

Compare that to the disgruntled Apple employee that steals trade secrets and discloses it to a Mac Rumor site — why should that disclosure be protected? Or a CIA official disclosing state secrets, if it is a crime, why should their conversation with a reporter be protected? There is no higher public purpose served by such a privilege. Even hiding the identity of an important whistleblower should not be protected. If he is blowing the whistle on some illegal activity, the authorities need to investigate it and need to talk to the guy who blew the whistle. There is never a justification for protecting conversations with a reporter. What is next, the public relations advisor privilege?

None of this is to say that a reporter cannot protect his sources. He can, if he deems it important to his “journalistic ethics,” but he needs to be prepared to suffer the consequences when his sense of ethics comes in conflict with the judicial process and the need to do justice.

I am about 40% certain we will be seeing the feds own newspapers before the end of the decade….

sven10077 on March 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM

May as well, they already control them.

With this bill, a reporter can make up an allegation, source it to an unamed source, with no proof, and the slander will stand because there is no way to FORCE the name of the source out of the reporter.

Romeo13 on March 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Add an ammendment to the bill, for the purposes of slander, if the reporter refuses to name the source, then the source shall be legally presumed to not exist.

FIFY

lorien1973 on March 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM

You only shortened the timeline by 9 months.

Couldn’t you then call yourself a newspaper?

Christian Conservative on March 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Rush referenced Ed twice this week on the radio for his original reporting, which makes me think…maybe bloggers should ban together and lobby for equal protection as they’re sourced more and more by alternate media outlets for their investigative work.

Kill me?

This is not Russia. Or Iran. Yet.

Wonder if we can get a law shielding people from faux-outraged politicians *coughBawneyFwankcough* or thier koolaid drinking minions *coughJoeThePlumbercough*…

Its a world gone mad,it’ll take a lone rightsphere blogger
to make it right,once again,in an action packed movie,

brought to you by,BendOver BackWards News(BBN),the flick
that will inspire,and send chills up and down your politic
al spines,

*5 Stars,a hell of a thrill ride,
-NYT.

Teleprompter Approved,a full Screen,and Two Thumbs Up,
-The Teleprompter Giuld.

Inspirational,a roller coaster ride of the net,you’ll
never forget! -USA Today! (Snark)ahem!

Not to mention, all I have to do is press a button and boom, Ed’s insights are now on deadtree format.

Rogue on March 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Ah, the looooooppphole…

Print ONE copy of HotAir every day… and stick up on a public wall somewhere… or buy an old newpaper machine…

Thus, you are now publishing a Newspaper! Hotair is just your editing and feedback device… kinda like letters to the editor …

It doesn’t appear to protect on-line reporting because of the format, rather than the act of reporting.

Not to mention, all I have to do is press a button and boom, Ed’s insights are now on deadtree format.

I understand about whistle blowers, but part of the distrust of the media is that they constantly print Rumour as Fact, and will not divulge the source.

And especialy when talking National Security issues, a reporter should not be able to use what is essentialy illegal information, and then protect his/her source.

Freedom of the Press is a part of Freedom of Speech, but even Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence OF that Speech.

With this bill, a reporter can make up an allegation, source it to an unamed source, with no proof, and the slander will stand because there is no way to FORCE the name of the source out of the reporter.

IMO this is one of the reasons Newspapers and Jounalism is dieing…. the people no longer trust it because it is not verifiable… and with the net, we have access to information TO verify.

Throw the bums in jail!