DailyTech - Bloggers to Receive Similar Legal Protection as Journalists

Submit News

IT Bloggers to Receive Similar Legal Protection as Journalists
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - May 8, 2007 5:36 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

22 comment(s) - last by James Holden.. on May 9 at 6:46 PM

The Free Flow of Information Act aims to help bloggers keep their sources confidential

Publishing information online has always been a staple of free speech and providing critical, and often controversial, information to the masses. Of course once blogs hit the Internet in a storm of popularity, there became a fine line between what a real journalist is compared to an Internet "blogger" -- the later being deemed to be not a journalist by definition.

A new bill being pushed by U.S. Congressmen Rick Boucher and Mike Pence along with other House representatives aims to change a few rules and give the same protection to bloggers that journalists receive. As the law exists today, bloggers are open to attack by large corporate entities that have vast resources to exercise legal power.

Called the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, Boucher plans to provide the same federal protection to most bloggers, provided that they show some form of journalism, which is defined in the new bill. Last year several Apple-oriented news sites became targets of a litigation-happy Apple. Apple argued that writers for AppleInsider, MacNN and PowerPage.org were "not true journalists" -- a theory that was later rejected by a panel of judges. Eventually Apple dropped its legal battle and the sites in question were left free to continue with their business.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been fighting for the free flow of information for the last several years. The organization involves itself in many issues concerning sources of information and their rights to remain confidential. Boucher voiced the same opinions, indicating that journalists and bloggers should be allowed to keep their sources confidential.

"The ability to assure confidentiality to people who provide information is essential to effective news gathering and reporting on highly sensitive and important issues," said Boucher in a statement.

The Act would apply to all forms of media that provide information to the public, including newspapers, magazines, book publishers, television networks and stations, cable and satellite networks, channels and programming services, news agencies and wire services. In addition, the Act would apply to web logs (“blogs”) that engage in journalism.

Boucher even went on to talk about how the new bill can protect individuals that work inside corrupt government organizations but want to shed light onto what goes on behind closed doors.

"Typically, the best information about corruption in government or misdeeds in a private organization will come from someone on the inside who feels a responsibility to bring the information to light," stated Boucher. "That person has a lot to lose if his or identity becomes known. In many cases, the person responsible for the corruption of the misdeeds can punish the source through dismissal or more subtle forms of punitive action if the source's identity becomes known."

In Boucher's break down of the actual bill, he clearly indicates blogs as entities that should be protected under the First Amendment. The Free Flow of Information Act will still need to jump through several hoops before it is passed. Analysts expect that several companies will oppose the bill due to the very fact that they are constantly in the eyes of the media. Despite this, Boucher and several others believe that the new bill has a strong chance to be accepted by Congress.

"It protects the public's right to know. Its passage should be a priority in this Congress," said Boucher.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

bloggers...

By Gul Westfale on 5/8/2007 9:16:40 PM , Rating: 4

i'm sorry, but whenever i hear the words "blogger", or , even worse, "blogosphere", all i can think of is a bunch of self-important idiots who have nothing to say and nothing to do; except for wasting their time by pretending to be experts on just about every subject imaginable. pretentious young men... the pretentious young girls are on myspace... excuse me, "the myspace" , as it is called.

i signed up just to say that... sad, i know.

RE: bloggers...

By redbone75 on 5/8/2007 9:36:46 PM , Rating: 6

And when these pretentious, self-important idiots actually do have something of relevance and import to say, what then? Quite often we tend to look at the messenger instead of the message. I believe you don't need to be paid millions and have a camera pointed at you in order to say something important or be heard, for that matter: you just need internet access and a little savvy. A good blog and thousands of readers can sometimes be as effective as thousands of people with signs.

Parent

RE: bloggers...

By Gul Westfale on 5/8/2007 10:02:43 PM , Rating: 3

quite right you are, the message is always more important.

i do not believe that overpaid "journalists" who really do nothing anymore except worry about their hairstyles are any better than bloggers...

remember when the BBC announced that a US senate committee found no evidence of a link between saddam hussein and al-qada, and yet on CNN all you could read about were some retard celebrity and anderson cooper?

my point is exactly that the message should matter more than the posturing and self-flattery of a bunch of wannabe journalists, be they on TV or the internet. anybody can repeat what is handed to them by government agencies or corporations; anybody can sit at home speculate about things they know little about. but actual investigative journalism in the mainstream media? when was the last time you saw that?

Parent

RE: bloggers...

By theprodigalrebel on 5/9/2007 12:27:00 AM , Rating: 5

Blogging isn't any more different than commenting on a news site. The only difference is instead of leaving comments on a dozen different news sites (such as this), bloggers just post links to the article and express their views/comments on their own site.

Of course, there are close to a hundred million blogs out there and the vast majority of it isn't quality content. But hey, an opinion is an opinion.

Parent

RE: bloggers...

By KoreyJ on 5/9/2007 10:35:16 AM , Rating: 2

The First Amendment, no matter how educated someone is, gives us the right to express those opinions. As a blogger, I often browse the blogs of others to check out their opinions or the quality of their entries. Not all of it is excellent reading but some of it is. Thankfully, the good reads have outweighed the bad reads for me.

Should all bloggers be protected from potential prosecution? No, but they should protected from erroneous law suits that have no merit. It should be the responsibility of the blogger to provide accurate information to protect themselves from any lawsuits.

Parent

ugh

By goku on 5/8/2007 9:27:34 PM , Rating: 1

I can't believe that this congressman thinks he knows whats best for this country. This bill will only hinder business by not allowing them to sue entities who release private information to the public. Corruption is a nonissue and it was in apple's every right to sue those who are responsible for the leaked information. I believe journalists and bloggers should not have the abilty to release damaging information about an organization. The government and corporations of america don't have issues with corruption and what not like other countries, therefore this can only hurt and not help. Even if there is corruption, it's not significant enough to become a problem.

This congressman needs to spend his time on more important matters such as strengthening the patriot act or increasing censorship. We need to protect the people and in order to do this, we need to control the release of information to them in order to keep things civilized. I mean, when was the last time our government or a corporate entity has lied to the american public? Even if they do lie to the people, it's in the best interest of the people to know only what they need to know.

RE: ugh

By feelingshorter on 5/8/2007 9:49:58 PM , Rating: 2

And I'm sure your the one to tell us people "what we need to know." Thats the must BS I've ever herd of. Protect big businesses from damaging information of what? If they cannot protect their own secrets then that's there problem. Since when did big business ever look out for the little man? They look out for their profits.

But even worse is that you don't see the obvious. Ever herd of print newspaper dying? Why? Because people are starting to read the news off the internet more often. The founding fathers thought it was important enough for newspapers to have such freedoms that it is in the bill of rights. Nowadays, there are blogs out there where its just a one man publication. I remember a while back some guy had a website where he wrote his own stories and took his own pictures with his own little camera. That was how he made a living. I don't see the difference between this and a big printed newspaper.

Maybe I'm biased because i used to write for my high school newspaper and took some journalism class. But as i see it, the print newspaper is transitioning to the internet, and journalists/news publications of all size should get this protection. Most of our Congressmen are lawyers, and who better to write our laws than people who understand it. They are just extending the freedoms of the press in a digital age IMO.

Parent

RE: ugh

By Clienthes on 5/9/2007 1:08:31 AM , Rating: 3

That was sarcasm you replied to.

Parent

RE: ugh

By feelingshorter on 5/9/2007 3:11:43 AM , Rating: 2

heheh, oops. He sounded so serious, Usually, sarcasm is funnier. He could of well been serious. I actually know people that support the patriot act, and much more of what he said.

Parent

RE: ugh

By goku on 5/9/2007 5:32:34 AM , Rating: 4

"Usually, sarcasm is funnier. "
aww I guess I failed.. Damn.

Parent

RE: ugh

By EagleScout77 on 5/8/2007 11:21:10 PM , Rating: 2

"This congressman needs to spend his time on more important matters such as strengthening the patriot act or increasing censorship."

Burn the constitution. F@%K YEA!!!

"I mean, when was the last time our government or a corporate entity has lied to the american public?"

Hmm.. Enron? WMD's in Iraq?

"Even if they do lie to the people, it's in the best interest of the people to know only what they need to know."

Parent

RE: ugh

By Clienthes on 5/9/2007 1:14:28 AM , Rating: 3

Again, that was sarcasm your replied to.

Oh, and WMD in Iraq wasn't a lie, it was bad intel. It happens. There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Lying involves intent.

Parent

good.

By crazydrummer4562 on 5/8/2007 5:39:13 PM , Rating: 5

I absolutely hope this passes in congress.

RE: good.

By HaZaRd2K6 on 5/8/2007 7:11:01 PM , Rating: 2

Here here. Great idea. Looks like at least some people still look out for the little guys.

Parent

Oh great...

By UserDoesNotExist on 5/8/2007 9:40:33 PM , Rating: 2

The last thing we need is to inflate bloggers' egos as big as they already are. What's the difference between a blogger and a regular person? The regular person has a job. If the bloggers get legal protection against revealing sources, EVERYONE should get legal protection against revealing sources.

RE: Oh great...

By Vergil117 on 5/8/2007 10:32:22 PM , Rating: 3

Not every blogger acts as you describe them. Besides the big news reporters on TV have money and power to get that job as a news reporter. Blogers don't have that such ablitity or power.

Parent

RE: Oh great...

By Clienthes on 5/9/2007 1:24:14 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
the big news reporters on TV have money and power to get that job as a news reporter

Eh? Maybe I'm missing you point, but I think most new reporters go to college, then get an entry level job and work there way up. Not everyone rich/powerful/famous started out that way.

I think the bill is a good idea, provided it does a good job defining journalistic content. I'd hate to see this abused by all the FUD-mongers out there in cyberspace.

Parent

1066: Battle of Hastings

By Pythias on 5/9/2007 2:10:46 AM , Rating: 2

While freedom of the press is important, not having to name your source makes it incredibly easy to contrive "fake but accurate" reporting.

RE: 1066: Battle of Hastings

By James Holden on 5/9/2007 6:46:27 PM , Rating: 2

I didn't know the Inquirer was still in business since I switched to DT :)

Parent

Anything

By qdemn7 on 5/9/2007 3:10:59 AM , Rating: 2

That would give Apple indigestion I'm in favor of.

blogging as journalism

By fairplay on 5/9/2007 11:00:51 AM , Rating: 2

OK, I can accept bloggers being protected if they are publishing straight information, but bloggers who do nothing but threaten others, spread libelous accusations, assumptions and other crap should not be protected. If bloggers want the same protections as journalists, they should also have the same credentials, and they should play by the same rules, and be subject to lawsuits and convictions for publishing untrue information. Just because you have the wherewithal to open a blogger account and type shouldn't mean your are now a journalist. If you see a car in a parking lot and assume a lot of untrue things from that, the person whose reputation you've smeared should be able to successfully sue you in court and get reparations. If you print as statements of fact things that you have absolutely no evidence for, as if you know what other people are thinking and why they do things when in fact there is not a shred of truth to it, you should be held accountable. If, on the other hand, you are presenting straight news or reasoned opinions based on verifiable facts, then absolutely yes, you should be protected.

Misleading Title

By MrTeal on 5/8/2007 9:11:45 PM , Rating: 1

This bill hasn't been passed, and the article even states that despite the confidence of its authors that it will be, it will face opposition. Saying that bloggers will be protected is a little premature.