Obama Administration trying to pass laws affecting 1st Amendment rights

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I don't know where to begin here. There is so much that needs to be discussed before this gets passed and this may become law this year or as early as 2010. The issue I have with this is National Security vs. 1st Amendment rights and not the shield laws which around 34 states have some form of adoption. This takes the ruling in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) case and applies it to all cases instead of case by case basis state by state.

What is in this balancing test the judges will apply and even bigger than that who are they defining as journalists besides the inclusion of bloggers? What is this doing to journalism and the free flow of information if reporters have to disclose sources? What is this going to do when journalists who are being the watchdog collecting information on the various arms of the government are called upon to give their information over to the government? I mean this is why we have the 1st amendment. We were getting away from the King of England and his control of the media then.

Deal in Senate on Protecting News Sources

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Published: October 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, leading Senate Democrats and a coalition of news organizations have reached tentative agreement on legislation providing greater protections against the fining or imprisonment of reporters who refuse to identify confidential sources.

Under the deal, made public Friday, federal judges could quash subpoenas demanding testimony or information from reporters if the judges determined that the public interest in news gathering outweighed the need to uncover the source of a leak, including, in some circumstances, unauthorized disclosure of classified government information.

Protection under the so-called shield law would also be extended to unpaid bloggers engaged in gathering and disseminating news.

A version of shield legislation was approved by the House in March. But a similar bill has stalled in the Senate, and its prospects appeared to dim significantly in September when the administration, responding to apprehension expressed by intelligence agencies and prosecutors, took a harder line with regard to cases in which the government could claim national security concerns.

With the new agreement, however, the White House has now moderated that position.

“We expect this proposal to move forward with bipartisan support, and the president looks forward to signing it into law,” said Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, who noted that the Obama administration was “the first administration in history to support media shield legislation.”

The protection would apply not only against subpoenas for reporters’ testimony or information but also against investigative efforts to obtain phone and Internet records to find out who had been talking with them.

Under the agreement, the scope of protection for reporters seeking to shield the identities of confidential sources would vary according to the nature of the case: civil, criminal or national security.

In civil cases, the litigants seeking to force reporters to testify would first have to exhaust all other means of obtaining the information. Even then, the judge would apply a “balancing test,” and the burden would be on the information seekers to show by a “preponderance of the evidence” why their need for the testimony outweighed the public’s interest in news gathering.

Ordinary criminal cases, as in prosecutors’ effort to find out who leaked grand jury information about professional athletes’ steroid use to The San Francisco Chronicle, would work the same way, except that the balancing test would be heavily tilted in favor of prosecutors. For a judge to quash a subpoena, the burden would be on a reporter to make it “clear and convincing” that the public interest in the free flow of information should prevail.

Most cases involving disclosure of classified information would work the same way as criminal cases. But judges could not quash a subpoena through a balancing test if prosecutors showed that the information sought would help to prevent or mitigate a future terrorist attack or other acts that are “likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security.”

On the other hand, the prospect that a confidential source might, in the future, disclose something else that is classified would not be enough to bring about that exception.

The compromise grants no protection against a reporter’s being required to disclose the identity of someone who has engaged in an act of terrorism. Nor does it cover nonconfidential information, like unpublished interview notes or news footage that has not been televised, which are often the object of subpoenas. The House version of the shield bill would protect such material, and abandoning that provision was a chief concession of the bill’s Senate sponsors and news organizations.

“There was compromise on both sides,” said Paul J. Boyle, senior vice president for public policy at the Newspaper Association of America.

Along with most other major news organizations, The New York Times Company supports the agreement, said George H. Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel.

Mr. Freeman emphasized that even if the agreement became law, reporters would face a “daunting” standard to avoid disclosing sources.

“But at least we could explain to a judge why it is in the public interest that we have published stories,” he said, “and therefore we would have a shot at protecting our confidential sources.”

The leading proponents of the legislation, Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, both Democrats, expressed confidence that the compromise would move quickly through the Senate.

“We still get most of our information from investigative journalists,” Mr. Specter said. “If you can’t protect sources, there is a lot of public corruption and private malfeasance that will go undetected and unpunished.”

In a recent call for action on shield legislation, Mr. Specter said that since 2001 at least 19 journalists had been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors for information about confidential sources and that four had been imprisoned for refusing to comply.

About three dozen states already have some form of shield law. Proponents argue that it is in the public interest to allow reporters to protect confidential sources, in order to bring important information to light. Opponents argue that news organizations should not have special privileges or be allowed to decide on their own whether exposing secrets is justified.

Source

[justashooter 430]

about 25 years ago there was a horrible made for TV miniseries about aliens visiting earth. it was called V. in the first 2 episodes the aliens gained control of the news and the intelligensia through fear inducing tactics, just like hitler did 50 years earlier.

osama wants to do it all over again. first he takes away your right to tell other people what you see. then he takes away your right to disagree with government. then he comes for the guns, and you have nothing.

there are 300 million guns in private hands, but they aren't much use if they're not organised. it took 3% of the populace to liberate the colonies from england. the 3% worked in units. osama doesn't want 3% to be able to work in units. the result might be that 6 or 7 percent work as individuals. the result will be the same, but much more costly in terms of human life and suffering.

this is a worst case scenario that will prolly never happen, but it's what the second amendment is all about. thank god for a system of state government that is increasingly challenging the monster that federal government has become. you can thank lincoln for that. you can thank him for your income taxes, too.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

about 25 years ago there was a horrible made for TV miniseries about aliens visiting earth. it was called V. in the first 2 episodes the aliens gained control of the news and the intelligensia through fear inducing tactics, just like hitler did 50 years earlier.

osama wants to do it all over again. first he takes away your right to tell other people what you see. then he takes away your right to disagree with government. then he comes for the guns, and you have nothing.

there are 300 million guns in private hands, but they aren't much use if they're not organised. it took 3% of the populace to liberate the colonies from england. the 3% worked in units. osama doesn't want 3% to be able to work in units. the result might be that 6 or 7 percent work as individuals. the result will be the same, but much more costly in terms of human life and suffering.

this is a worst case scenario that will prolly never happen, but it's what the second amendment is all about. thank god for a system of state government that is increasingly challenging the monster that federal government has become. you can thank lincoln for that. you can thank him for your income taxes, too.

Tell it brother.

[The_Dude 1,142]

about 25 years ago there was a horrible made for TV miniseries about aliens visiting earth. it was called V. in the first 2 episodes the aliens gained control of the news and the intelligensia through fear inducing tactics, just like hitler did 50 years earlier.

osama wants to do it all over again. first he takes away your right to tell other people what you see. then he takes away your right to disagree with government. then he comes for the guns, and you have nothing.

there are 300 million guns in private hands, but they aren't much use if they're not organised. it took 3% of the populace to liberate the colonies from england. the 3% worked in units. osama doesn't want 3% to be able to work in units. the result might be that 6 or 7 percent work as individuals. the result will be the same, but much more costly in terms of human life and suffering.

this is a worst case scenario that will prolly never happen, but it's what the second amendment is all about. thank god for a system of state government that is increasingly challenging the monster that federal government has become. you can thank lincoln for that. you can thank him for your income taxes, too.

Did you actually read the article posted or did you simply post that inane drivel blindly?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

about 25 years ago there was a horrible made for TV miniseries about aliens visiting earth. it was called V. in the first 2 episodes the aliens gained control of the news and the intelligensia through fear inducing tactics, just like hitler did 50 years earlier.

osama wants to do it all over again. first he takes away your right to tell other people what you see. then he takes away your right to disagree with government. then he comes for the guns, and you have nothing.

there are 300 million guns in private hands, but they aren't much use if they're not organised. it took 3% of the populace to liberate the colonies from england. the 3% worked in units. osama doesn't want 3% to be able to work in units. the result might be that 6 or 7 percent work as individuals. the result will be the same, but much more costly in terms of human life and suffering.

this is a worst case scenario that will prolly never happen, but it's what the second amendment is all about. thank god for a system of state government that is increasingly challenging the monster that federal government has become. you can thank lincoln for that. you can thank him for your income taxes, too.

Did you actually read the article posted or did you simply post that inane drivel blindly?

If I had to take a guess, I'd have to go with the latter.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

it's because obama wants to shut down fox news.

[britty 1]

it's because obama wants to shut down fox news.

he is such a baby about Fox News ...man up.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

That doesn't make sense. The New York Times and Fox News are owned by the second largest media conglomerate behind the Walt Disney Company called News Corp. NYT was purchased in 2007 by it. The company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Founder is Rupert Murdoch. Also The New York Times wrote the article and supports the agreement.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That doesn't make sense. The New York Times and Fox News are owned by the second largest media conglomerate behind the Walt Disney Company called News Corp. NYT was purchased in 2007 by it. The company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Founder is Rupert Murdoch. Also The New York Times wrote the article and supports the agreement.

No way...Murdoch owns NYT???

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

That doesn't make sense. The New York Times and Fox News are owned by the second largest media conglomerate behind the Walt Disney Company called News Corp. NYT was purchased in 2007 by it. The company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Founder is Rupert Murdoch. Also The New York Times wrote the article and supports the agreement.

No way...Murdoch owns NYT???

News Corp owns it. Murdoch is the founder, chairman, and CEO of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

Here is the link to News Corp>: http://www.newscorp.com

Watch the rotating screen on the page and you will see the icons of all the media he has being the second largest conglomerate.

Look under Ownership here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Ah here we go. This page has a better banner in a box to catch all the company's he owns. http://careers.newscorp.com/

[scandal 951]

Look under Ownership here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

Ah.... NO. Definitely no.

Read your own link more carefully. Here - I'll post it for you:

The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned the Times since 1896.[7] After the publisher went public in the 1960s, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders cannot vote on many important matters relating to the company, while Class B shareholders can vote on all matters. Dual-class structures caught on in the mid-20th century as families such as the Grahams of the Washington Post Company sought to gain access to public capital without losing control. Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, had a similar structure and was controlled by the Bancroft family; the company was later bought by the News Corporation in 2007.[27]

What wikipedia is saying is that the WSJ, which used to be family controlled (as the NYT still is today) - was bought by News Corp.

News Corp has no ownership stake in NYT. (Well, they may own some of the public shares, but not enough to be recorded, and certainly not a voting or controlling stake.)

Ah here we go. This page has a better banner in a box to catch all the company's he owns. http://careers.newscorp.com/

Flower - the banner ad at that link is for the New York POST. Yes, Murdoch owns the New York Post.

But The New York Post is most certainly NOT the New York Times. Not by a long shot!

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Look under Ownership here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

Ah.... NO. Definitely no.

Read your own link more carefully. Here - I'll post it for you:

The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned the Times since 1896.[7] After the publisher went public in the 1960s, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders cannot vote on many important matters relating to the company, while Class B shareholders can vote on all matters. Dual-class structures caught on in the mid-20th century as families such as the Grahams of the Washington Post Company sought to gain access to public capital without losing control. Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, had a similar structure and was controlled by the Bancroft family; the company was later bought by the News Corporation in 2007.[27]

What wikipedia is saying is that the WSJ, which used to be family controlled (as the NYT still is today) - was bought by News Corp.

News Corp has no ownership stake in NYT. (Well, they may own some of the public shares, but not enough to be recorded, and certainly not a voting or controlling stake.)

Ah here we go. This page has a better banner in a box to catch all the company's he owns. http://careers.newscorp.com/

Flower - the banner ad at that link is for the New York POST. Yes, Murdoch owns the New York Post.

But The New York Post is most certainly NOT the New York Times. Not by a long shot!

The structure is confusing to me with who is the principle and the share holders. Money and numbers make my head hurt. Ok so this means he owns the Wall Street Journal and the Dow Jones but not The New York Times? I thought I remembered some Mexican Billionaire bought the sagging NYT in the past few years so thanks for making sense of that, I guess.

Edited November 4, 2009 by ~Flower~

[scandal 951]

The structure is confusing of me who is the principle and the share holders. Ok so this means he owns the Wall Street Journal and the Dow Jones but not The New York Times? I thought I remembered some Mexican Billionaire bought the sagging NYT in the past few years so thanks for making sense of that, I guess.

Yes, the NYT ownership structure is (intentionally) confusing.

Although it's publicly listed, most of the shares are non-voting and control remains firmly in family hands.

You do remember correctly - Carlos Slim a Mexican who is ranked one of the top 10 richest men in the world, bought a stake in NYT last year. It's a minority holding, he has no control of the paper.