Senate’s Broadened Definition of Journalist Is an Improvement, but Still Not Enough
Morgan Weiland
September 12, 2013
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s amended federal shield law bill passed today by a 13-5 vote, and importantly included Sen. Feinstein’s (D-CA) new amendment broadening the definition of who qualifies as a journalist. But as her condescending remarks about the purpose behind her amendment reveal—that it is intended to ensure that “people who really aren’t reporters at all,” like the “17 year old who drops out of high school, buys a website for five dollars, and starts a blog,” are not protected—the bill still excludes many people who do journalism from coverage.
First, the positives: Feinstein’s amendment, ALB 13767, addresses a number of key problems regarding her prior amendment:
Still, this amendment is no panacea. It retains some of the statutory vagueness that was problematic in the prior amendment, which puts those on the margins of the definition of journalist at risk. Second, it includes an intent test such that an individual must have had the “primary intent” to do journalism to qualify for protection, threatening some citizen journalists. And finally it retains the requirement that an individual “regularly” engage in journalism activities—a qualification that has long been critiqued as muddying the statutory waters to the likely detriment of non-institutional journalists
Threats to press freedom around the world are at an all-time high. Sign up to stay up to date and take action to protect journalists and whistleblowers everywhere.
Thanks for signing up for our newsletter. You are not yet subscribed! Please check your email for a message asking you to confirm your subscription.
Perhaps there is only so much progress that can be made when trying to define who is a journalist. Indeed, the Republican dissenters pointed to the fundamental tension with this amendment—and indeed with Congress’ broader efforts to define who is and isn’t a journalist in federal shield law legislation. Any attempt to carve out protections for some journalists but not others raises the constitutional question of whether or not the government is, as Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) put it, engaging in “licensing of legitimate media.”
Congress could avoid this constitutional question by dropping its efforts to draw a line between journalists and Feinstein’s 17-year-old boogeyman blogging in the basement. Instead, as we have advocated all along, Congress should embrace a functional test, defining journalism, not journalist.
Also, it’s worth noting another major flaw in this bill that was completely absent from the debate today: the giant national security exception carved out to placate the White House. We’ve written about how this provision will leave the journalists most vulnerable to being subpoenaed—national security reporters—with the least protection. Hopefully, this provision can be removed entirely, either during debate on the Senate floor, or, if the bill passes both houses, during conference with the House. Otherwise, the bill might end up hurting more than helping the people it’s intended to help the most.