Senate committee votes to give "reporter's privilege" to BVD-clad bloggers

A news article said,

Anyone regularly engaged in "journalism," which would seem to include some bloggers, wouldn't generally be forced to divulge confidential sources in federal cases under a bill approved Thursday by a U.S. Senate committee.

By a 15-2 vote, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee backed an amended version of the so-called Free Flow of Information Act. Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) cast the "no" votes.

Some form of "reporter's privilege," either through laws or court decisions, already exists in 49 states and the District of Columbia. This bill would extend that protection to federal cases, shielding anyone engaged in the practice of "journalism"--with a number of exceptions, naturally--from being forced to give up confidential information or provide testimony.

The term "journalism" clearly would sweep up at least some bloggers because the bill defines it thusly: "the regular 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."

That broad definition still gives some politicians heartburn. At Thursday's meeting, three members of the Senate committee -- Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) -- said they worried about giving protection to bloggers who aren't generally expected to adhere to the same code of conduct and ethics as professional journalists, according to a Senate aide familiar with the debate. But they didn't propose any different language at the time, opting instead to work with the bill's primary sponsors to craft tweaks before the bill hits the Senate floor.

Yes -- there is very good reason to be worried about the conduct and ethics (or more correctly, lack of ethics) of such evil BVD-clad bloggers as Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, and Wes "Ding" Elsberry. All three arbitrarily censor visitors' comments on their blogs and Fatheaded Ed in particular just makes up stories out of thin air. These bloggers have no credibility.

Although it's unclear how the final language will shake out, it could end up resembling the approach taken by a House of Representatives panel when it backed a similar bill in August. That bill's authors said they planned to add a condition restricting the reporter's privilege only to those who derive "financial gain or livelihood" from the practice of journalism. (Granted, it's relatively easy and inexpensive to slap advertisements on blogs and qualify for the privilege, so some politicians weren't impressed by that amendment.)

. . . . . .And, of course, neither bill is without a lengthy list of exceptions to the privileges, which many major news organizations have deemed an appropriate balance. The Senate version would permit forced disclosure of information in cases where there's reason to believe a crime has occurred; where the information sought is "essential" to the investigation, defense or prosecution; or where unauthorized revelations of information have caused -- or will cause--"significant and articulable harm to the national security." If the information is necessary in cases involving kidnapping, death, "substantial bodily harm" or terrorism against the United States, among other things, it would also be fair game.

Actually, the bill does not appear to give much protection to reporters because the exceptions -- e.g., where there is reason to believe a crime has occurred -- would cover most situations where disclosure of confidential information is sought. This bill would not protect, say, the reporters who were jailed or threatened with jail for refusing to identify their sources in the Plamegate scandal.

I think that the reporter's privilege should apply in investigations of crimes that have already been committed but should not apply when disclosure of the confidential information might help prevent a future crime, particularly a major crime involving bodily harm or kidnapping.

This Senate bill, S 2035, has only four co-sponsors (plus the sponsor), and yet was voted out of a Senate committee by a vote of 15-2. In contrast, the Senate bill to bar attorney fee award rip-offs in establishment clause lawsuits, S 415 , now has 20 co-sponsors (plus the sponsor) but has been stalled in committee for months, with no hearing so far (a Senate committee hearing was held for a similar bill -- S 3696 -- last year, and the House version of the bill passed the full House). That's a shame.
.