General Discussion

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts) Tue May 21, 2013, 11:05 AM May 2013

We need a media shield law, not more GOP posturing (my latest Detroit News rant... er, blog post)

The Associated Press is right to be furious about the Justice Department’s decision to look at its phone records. But let’s be clear about what makes the AP case “scandalous” – and what does not.

Having been a journalist for many years, I know the value of confidential sources. Some important information comes from people who do not want their names used. If reporters can be spied on, those sources will not talk.

The government also has a right to control leaks of classified information. But there have to be limits. Ideally, investigations should focus entirely on potential leakers, not reporters.

While leaking official secrets can be a serious crime, it is usually not illegal for reporters to receive or publish them. Because of that, spying on journalists should be a last resort. When it’s done, the snooping should be limited to extreme cases and supervised by a judge.

More here: http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/ap-case-and-need-to-rein-in-feds/

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We need a media shield law, not more GOP posturing (my latest Detroit News rant... er, blog post) (Original Post) LuckyTheDog May 2013 OP

A media shield law to protect only the media, and particlarly the MSM? No thank you. AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #1

Not sure what that's supposed to mean. LuckyTheDog May 2013 #2

How in the world, in anyone's world, would a media shield law be contrary to the 4th Amendment? AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #3

You know what is hysterical about this? nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #4

Who said blogs are not 'media'? LuckyTheDog May 2013 #6

A lot of our residents decrying nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #8

That's what I was asking LuckyTheDog May 2013 #5

FISA is contrary to the Fourth Amendment. I did not say a media shield law would be "contrary to AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #9

FISA, is, in your opinion, contrary to the 4th Amendment LuckyTheDog May 2013 #10

My suggestion ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #12

I read the shield law wouldn't apply to "national security". dkf May 2013 #7

A media shield law would bring in judicial oversight LuckyTheDog May 2013 #11

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)

1. A media shield law to protect only the media, and particlarly the MSM? No thank you.

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 11:12 AM

May 2013

Everyone should be protected.

We have a Fourth Amendment. The Constitution provides the procedure by which it can be amended. The procedure does not include merely passing a statute contrary to the Fourth Amendment.

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts)

2. Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

Reply to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Tue May 21, 2013, 12:15 PM

May 2013

I don't see why a media shield law would be a bad thing or why it would be contrary to the Fourth Amendment.

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)

3. How in the world, in anyone's world, would a media shield law be contrary to the 4th Amendment?

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Reply #2)

Tue May 21, 2013, 12:33 PM

May 2013

The Fourth Amendment provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If the Obama Administration has probable cause to search through telephone records, it should obtain one or more warrants to do so instead of engaging in drag-net fishing expeditions. The FISA statute is unconsitutional on its face.

The Obama Administration should not be engaging in wide-spread spying upon us. Carving out an exception for the media, and the MSM in particular, means that the Administration's spying upon all the rest of us would continue without criticism from the media.

Let the media continue to criticize the unconstitutional searches, even if the media is doing so in a belated manner. Take the pressure off, make a special exception for the media, and the media will not continue to do so.

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

4. You know what is hysterical about this?

Reply to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Tue May 21, 2013, 12:37 PM

May 2013

You are actually part of the media...I know most bloggers don't realize it, but you too are media.

The only difference between you and me, is that I got a county issued silly card that allows me to get behind police lines, and fire lines. In exchange, if I get hurt or killed, I don't get to sue them.

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts)

6. Who said blogs are not 'media'?

Reply to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #4)

Tue May 21, 2013, 12:40 PM

May 2013

Not me.

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

8. A lot of our residents decrying

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Reply #6)

Tue May 21, 2013, 12:41 PM

May 2013

This shield law say they are not. I answered to Macintosh

We both know different.

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts)

5. That's what I was asking

Reply to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Tue May 21, 2013, 12:38 PM

May 2013

You said above that you think a media shield law would be "contrary to the 4th Amendment," but did not explain how.

This follow-up post sheds very little additional light on your position.

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)

9. FISA is contrary to the Fourth Amendment. I did not say a media shield law would be "contrary to

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Reply #5)

Tue May 21, 2013, 12:48 PM

May 2013

the 4th Amendment."

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts)

10. FISA, is, in your opinion, contrary to the 4th Amendment

Reply to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #9)

Tue May 21, 2013, 12:58 PM

May 2013

But, until a court agrees with you, the FISA law will stand.

I do not entirely disagree with you about the merits of FISA.

BUT... It is beyond me how the existence of FISA creates an argument against passing a media shield law.

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)

12. My suggestion ...

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Reply #10)

Tue May 21, 2013, 09:30 PM

May 2013

Don't even try responding to hysteria ... The above is uninformed/sophmorica hysteria.

dkf

(37,305 posts)

7. I read the shield law wouldn't apply to "national security".

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 12:41 PM

May 2013

Boy like that isn't something they use all the time.

What do you think about reporters being called "co-conspirators"? Scary stuff.

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts)

11. A media shield law would bring in judicial oversight

Reply to dkf (Reply #7)

Tue May 21, 2013, 01:12 PM

May 2013

That would be a huge improvement.

If journalists engage in actual espionage, or steal classified material (say, by breaking into databases or some other means) they probably are going to be subject to prosecution. The point of a shield law is not to grant journalists blanket immunity from prosecution in all circumstances. The point is to provide a safe harbor for actual news gathering activities.

Reply to this discussion