The Senate is currently debating this question in order to define upon whom certain special protections shall be bestowed. If this strikes you as dangerous, you're right. The U.S. is one of only a few countries that currently does not require a person to obtain a license from the government to report on the doings of the government.
The bill says that a "covered journalist" is a person who gathers or
writes news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and
information."
Using this definition an open-minded judge would have to admit that even I qualify. Our elected officials however will probably want something more restrictive, like a definition of "an entity or service" that would include corporations like News Corp or one of the alphabet soup broadcasters, but not anything that includes blogspot in its name. I expect that the final version will after all the mumbo-jumbo is sifted read something like:
A "covered journalist" is a person who gathers or
writes news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and
information and doesn't say anything bad about elected officials."
Drudge is calling the law "fascist" which is probably not far off. Under fascism you get to keep your business, but there's a government official effectively on your board of directors with ultimate power over any actions you might be contemplating.
No comments:
Post a Comment