"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH; OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, United States Constitution.
Recently, news broke that there were enough votes in the United States Senate to pass a bill that would "protect" journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources. This bill no doubt originated in the aftermath of one particular journalist (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/fox-news-jana-winter-not-reveal-sources-aurora) being threatened by the government with fines and/or imprisonment after she refused to reveal her own information or sources during her coverage of the Aurora Colorado movie theater shooting back in 2012.
On the surface, giving such protection to journalists sounds like a good thing. After all, if those who report on current events and who break stories of historical significance are constantly having to look over their shoulders to see if government agents are threatening to punish them, a de facto stifling of the First Amendment is at that point a reality.
However, this bill should be seen for the Trojan Horse that it is. Specifically, according news sources, its language is such that it applies to "professional" journalists only; in other words, “'covered journalist,' defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information." While it could potentially be argued that such a definition could apply to free-lance writers and the like, the reality is that in all likelihood this bill would fail to cover anyone not working for an official publication of some kind. In other words, if I, as a blogger, come across information that has far-reaching implications in a trial or investigation and am asked to keep my sources confidential, then the government can coerce me to divulge my sources and essentially shut me down as an independent reporter. And this constitutes a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Professional journalists serve a valuable purpose to a free society; at least those who take seriously their duty to report and inform. However, the First Amendment does not just apply to those that the government determines are covered by it. It applies to all.
My hope, therefore, is that this bill will be defeated soundly in either the Senate or the House and that people will continue to speak freely in defiance of any law that seeks to muzzle them. Free speech is integral to a free society.
Until next week. Live Free
-Warren Brisbane
No comments:
Post a Comment