Print 64 comment(s) - last by stmok.. on May 19 at 11:19 AM

The Freedom Flow of Information Act would protect journalists from punishment if they decline to identify confidential sources in federal law enforcement proceedings

The Obama administration wants to create a federal media shield law by bringing an old bill back to life. 

Ed Pagano, President Obama’s Senate liaison, called Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) on Wednesday morning to inquire about a version of a 2009 bill called the Freedom Flow of Information Act. 

The Freedom Flow of Information Act would protect journalists from punishment if they decline to identify confidential sources in federal law enforcement proceedings. It would also allow journalists to ask a federal judge to destroy subpoenas for their phone records.

The bill would provide different levels of protection for journalists. Civil cases would receive the greatest protection, criminal cases would be similar (except the reporter would have to try and abolish the subpoena through a “clear and convincing” standard showing that the free flow of information is more important than the needs of law enforcement) and national security cases would lean in favor of the government. 

There were a couple of different versions of the bill, but the Obama administration is looking to recover the one supported by Schumer. It was jointly created by the newspaper industry and the White House, and even approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan 15-to-4 vote in December 2009. However, issues with Wikileaks exposing confidential government information on the internet put the bill on hold.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder

The decision to bring this bill back to life comes amid controversy surrounding the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) subpoena to retrieve calling records of Associated Press reporters. 

DOJ used a subpoena (approved by Deputy James M. Cole) to obtain over 20 phone numbers from the Associated Press, including personal phones of AP editors/columnists and AP business phone numbers in New York; Hartford, Connecticut; and Washington. 

Furthermore, the DOJ did this without any advance notice. This puts the Associated Press' other private sources at risk and violates freedom of the press.

The reason for the subpoena was related to an article in which an unnamed government official leaked an account of a failed May 2012 bomb plot on an aircraft flying into the U.S. -- which involved the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda.

“This kind of law would balance national security needs against the public’s right to the free flow of information," said Schumer in regards to the Freedom Flow of Information Act. "At minimum, our bill would have ensured a fairer, more deliberate process in this case.”

Source: The New York Times

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Damage control
By bah12 on 5/16/2013 3:37:03 PM , Rating: 4
Amen, and we need a new bill why???? uh we have one it's called the First GDamned Amendment maybe if he actually followed the document he swore to uphold we wouldn't need more government to protect us from government ignoring the law anyway. Truly pathtetic.

Hey Obama while your at it you may want to sneak a peak a the next one too.

And come to think of it the 4th one might deserve a look, and the....oh the hell with it he obviously doesn't care what they say.

RE: Damage control
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 3:48:05 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah well Obama doesn't give two shits about the Constitution. I remember being literally scared of this guy back in 2008 when he spoke about the Constitution on an interview. Then-Illinois State Senator Obama expressed his discontent with the limits of the Constitution, complaining that is only “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He went further, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren was not “that radical” because it “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…” and expressing his opinion that neither “redistribution of wealth” nor “major redistributive change” was likely to come through the court system; leaving only the option of legislation, or administrative fiat.

Thus it should come as no surprise that he treats the rights enshrined in the First Amendment as inconveniences to be dispensed with when they conflict with one of his deeply-desired policy objectives.

RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 3:54:46 PM , Rating: 5
Well you don't actually have to know anything about the Constitution to teach it any more you know.

RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 3:53:28 PM , Rating: 4
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech also don't mean you can literally say anything you want and not have any consequences for it.

It's illegal to release classified information. Freedom of speech/press doesn't protect you if you are saying/printing something you're not legally allowed to.

RE: Damage control
By ComputerJuice on 5/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 4:39:36 PM , Rating: 4
There are plenty of things that are not considered free speech. Slander being one of the most prominent.

Free speech and press is largely unlimited but there are things that it is illegal to say and print.

If I go and talk about all the confidential details of the program I'm working on, when they come and fire me or even put me in jail, I can't claim my rights to free speech are being violated. The same goes with reporters being told confidential or classified information and then spreading that information.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki