Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
What’s the Point of a Source Protection Law That Wouldn’t Protect Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden?
from truthdig:
What’s the Point of a Source Protection Law That Wouldn’t Protect Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden?
Posted on May 19, 2014
By Carey Shenkman
Laws are bad when they don’t do what they are meant to and even worse when they cause harm instead. The journalist-source protection law being debated by Congress—the Free Flow of Information Act (FFIA or “federal shield law”) fails in both respects. Despite being pushed by media organizations after Associated Press reporters and other journalists were served court orders last summer, it is doubtful that the proposed law will meaningfully protect anyone. Instead, it sets the stage to punish whomever the government decides are “illegitimate” journalists.
Indeed, any outlet committed to giving voice to whistle-blowers—such as The Intercept or WikiLeaks—is not considered a “covered journalist” under the measure. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who drafted the bill, conceded that The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald, whose coverage of whistle-blower Snowden’s releases won a Pulitzer for The Guardian, would probably not be covered. The FFIA would fail to protect Snowden, or Manning, who provided evidence of war crimes and military cover-ups to WikiLeaks. Both sparked unprecedented public debates on government accountability and suffered the full wrath of the federal government. In other words, they are precisely the sources we need a shield law to protect.
The FFIA does not include those “whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity’s work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization.” This is colloquially called the WikiLeaks clause. But The Intercept is also in trouble owing to what its new editor-in-chief, John Cook, described in mid-April as a “commitment to continue the work of reporting on, publishing, and explicating” Snowden’s releases.
Certainly, Snowden came forward with his identity voluntarily and Manning was betrayed by a confidant, but this is no justification for crafting a law to exclude them. There will be more like them. The market for fearless government accountability publishing is small, and these sources are prime targets for subpoenas. Right now the traditional media still strongly support this bill, under the rationale that expecting perfection out of Washington is unrealistic. Schumer argued at a conference in March that the “perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good.” But in this case, the bad is the enemy of the good. Protecting Greenwald, Julian Assange and their sources is not perfection. It is a baseline. ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/point_of_source_protection_law_wouldnt_protect_manning_snowden_20140519
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Don't ever change, DU...
Just a simple yes or no question, "woo me with science": Have you ever worked for a major daily newspaper? Or anywhere in the journalism field?
The arguments are beyond absurd and insulting. It's just like arguing that a loophole that directly and deliberately shifts costs from health care corporations to patients is *really* a first step toward lowering costs for patients. 
Or that imposing austerity on the 99 percent and fellating the banks is a necessary step toward solving income inequality.
I'm getting very tired of being lectured that true justice for all requires the implementation of a corporate authoritarian state as a necessary incremental step.
