The Bush administration on Thursday blasted a congressional proposal that would shield a broad swath of news gatherers, including some bloggers, from revealing their confidential sources.
Laws recognizing some form of “reporter’s privilege” already exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia–but, crucially, do not shield journalists from federal prosecutors. The Bush Administration claims there’s no evidence that source-related subpoenas to reporters are on the rise and argues that it already has robust internal guidelines, including a requirement that the attorney general personally approve such subpoenas and provide an appropriate balance between press freedom and investigative needs.
On several occasions, politicians from both parties questioned whether the bill should be so expansive as to include bloggers.
“Whether you’re a blogger or whether you’re The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you’re a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not,”
Yes, there is a small contradiction there. I was just trying to get your position. I say the journalists should have gone to jail, though I’m less sure now given that the prosecutor already knew who the leaker was.
21—You posted a contradiction in order to have a position restated?
You clever bunny!!!!! My post No20 was about Mr Fusions contradiction. Reading your post at 17 seems straightforward to me.
Can get confusing cant it?
http://tinyurl.com/2vzjv5
The state of Tennessee is giving different treatment to website news, WorldNetDaily, than to regular newspapers. This case has a Gore friend suing wnd after they killed Gore in Tennessee.