Schumer-Graham-Feinstein-Durbin Sponsor Censorship While the first amendment protects freedom of the press, “there is no first amendment right for gathering information,” Schumer claimed at The New York Times’ Sources and Secrets Conference on the press, government and national security. Here is the legislation Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin want passed into law. http://www.spj.org/pdf/s-987-ffia-schumer-graham.pdf Don’t let the friendly title fool you - it’s a bill to censor, shut down and criminalize bloggers and journalists who cover any sensitive information affecting “national security.” Our Constitution already protects freedom of the press, this bill is to nullify that protection, the devil is in the details. All four of these Senators voted for COICA (which failed) in previous attempt to censor the internet after Cablegate. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml The 19 senators who voted for COICA ; Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin Jeff Sessions -- Alabama ? Dianne Feinstein -- California ? Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin Chuck Grassley -- Iowa Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania Jon Kyl -- Arizona ? Chuck Schumer -- New York ? ? Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina ? ? Dick Durbin -- Illinois ? John Cornyn -- Texas Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota Al Franken -- Minnesota Chris Coons -- Delaware These four senators have been trying to pass a new censorship bill referenced as the “Media Shield Law” - a law that would shield government corruption from the press and the public. Today, March 27 2014, they are still trying to pass this. --------------------------------------------------------- Several articles have reported on the proposed US media shield law, stressing that it was designed to exclude WikiLeaks from the shield protection. We summarize here what it is all about and quote several press articles. http://wikileaks-press.org/the-us-media-shield-law-and-wikileaks/ --------------------------------------------------------- http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/09/12/media-shield-law-which-defines-covered-journalists-moves-onward-to-the-senate The Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation that would establish a federal shield law for reporters or journalists in the United States. The legislation was amended, before passing out of committee, to define who would be a “covered journalist” under the proposed shield legislation. The proposed shield legislation, the Free of Flow of Information Act of 2013, was introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer as news of the Justice Department seizing an overly broad set of the Associated Press’ phone records for a leak investigation and of an FBI agent labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen an “aider, abettor and co-conspirator” in a leak investigation were making headlines. However, there is nothing immediately obvious in the proposed media shield that would protect the press from an agency in government committing those kind of abuses. It would not protect someone like New York Times reporter James Risen, who the administration of President Barack Obama has tried to force to testify against his source in a leak case despite protest from media organizations. Schumer said during the Judiciary Committee meeting that it would provide a shield for reporters “against unwarranted intrusion” (a reporters’ privilege) but would be “flexible to account for the legitimate needs of law enforcement, private litigants and national security.” He added, “It’s Kevlar, not Kryptonite.” “Prosecutors will lose sight of the need to preserve the free flow of information and in their understandable zeal to prosecute leakers who would seek to do harm to our country in one way or another,” Schumer said. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, “would preserve that ability but with real protections and notice for journalists in all but the most extreme cases.” ... ... An amendment from Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Dick Durbin passed in committee. As Feinstein said when presenting the amendment, “I’ve had long-standing concerns that the language in the bill as introduced would grant a special privilege to people who really aren’t reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications whatsoever.” “The fundamental issue behind this amendment is, should this privilege apply to anyone, to a seventeen year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for five dollars and starts a blog? Or should it apply to journalists, to reporters, who have bona fide credentials?” Feinstein asked. “This bill is described as a reporter shield law. So, I believe it should be applied to real reporters. The attorney- client privilege applies to attorneys, not any non-legal advisor. The spousal privilege applies to spouses, not to boyfriends and girlfriends. As I described the last time this committee passed this legislation, this could have been interpreted to cover hate websites like that of the neo-Nazi organization, the National Socialist Movement or even Senate press secretaries,” Feinstein suggested. Feinstein said the amendment sets up “a test for establishing bona fide credentials that make one a legitimate journalist.” A “covered journalist,” under the amendment, would be the following: “…an employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or other wise); news program; magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic, or other format; or through television or radio broadcast, multichannel video programming distributor (as such term is defined in section 602(13) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(13)), or motion picture for public showing…” The proposed shield law as passed would provide some protections against journalists being forced to reveal their sources. However, the Feinstein-Durbin amendment passed is very problematic specifically because a shield law should cover the act of journalism, not journalists. FLASHBACK ; Dick Durbin Co-sponsored Most-hated SOPA & PIPA http://capitolfax.com/2012/01/19/durbin-goes-to-ground-during-sopapipa-protest/ “Senator Durbin was also a sponsor for the SOPA / PIPA act, which would give the government even more power to censor and control the internet. You would think it would be impossible at this point to have MORE control, considering the recent leaks regarding the NSA.” ? http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/19/durbin-supplement-bill.aspx --------------------------------------------------------- http://www.naturalnews.com/042061_Free_Flow_of_Information_Act_alternative_media_censorship.html In response to growing public dissent against the federal occupying powers, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has sponsored a bill known as S. 987, or the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013, which will purportedly protect news reporters from being harassed or otherwise maliciously compelled by the federal government to disclose information about their private sources -- this is, after all, how honest media outlets are able to keep the government in check and act as whistleblowers when necessary to shine the light on corruption. But Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has successfully added an amendment to this Trojan Horse bill that strips these protections from the alternative media and others she deems as not being “real reporters.” http://watchdog.org/100682/feinstein-wants-to-limit-who-can-be-a-journalist/ The most recent congressional threat to the free press in the United States comes from California Democrat U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. In a proposed amendment to a media shield law being considered by Congress, Feinstein writes that only paid journalists should be given protections from prosecution for what they say or write. The language in her proposal is raising concerns from First Amendment advocates because it seems to leave out bloggers and other nontraditional forms of journalism that have proliferated in recent years thanks to the Internet. “It rubs me the wrong way that the government thinks it should be in the business of determining who should be considered a journalist,” said Ken Bunting, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the Missouri School of Journalism. But on the other hand, Bunting said, there is a great need for federal shield law in light of recent attempts by the U.S. Justice Department to force journalists to give up information about confidential sources. The difficulty with writing any such law — this is the third time Congress has attempted to craft a federal shield law — is that any such law would have to set standards for who counts as a journalist or what qualifies as an “act of journalism.” There are shield laws on the books in 40 states, but they do not apply in federal court. The First Amendment of the U.S Constitution promises that the right to a free press “shall not be infringed.” The proposed federal shield law would protect journalists from having to comply with subpoenas or court orders forcing them to reveal sources and other confidential information. The important question, of course, is how to determine that the shield law applies to one person and not another. In other words, how do you determine someone is a journalist? Feinstein, chairwoman of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee (and a staunch defender of the government’s right to spy on anyone at any time), does not want to see a shield law that would protect employees of WikiLeaks and other leak-driven news organizations. At a congressional hearing on the matter last week, Feinstein said shield laws should only apply to “real reporters.” --------------------------------------------------------- http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/lindsey-graham-isn-t-sure-if-bloggers-deserve-first-amendment-protection-20130605 Whether bloggers count as journalists has mostly been a matter of esoterics for reporter types. But as Congress weighs a media shield law in response to the Associated Press/Justice Department subpoena scandal, the question is gaining an urgency that lawmakers are finding hard to ignore as they turn to writing the bill. Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took on the issue—and stumbled. “Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves,” he said. “Is any blogger out there saying anything — do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.” ... ... http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/lindsey-graham-on-tracking-down-snowden-censoring-postal-mail-and-donating-to-ron-paul-60902/ Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-SC), as usual, has been a source of all sorts of imaginable quotes on national security, surveillance and private political donations in recent days. Not only does the senior Senator from South Carolina question whether bloggers deserve first amendment protections and is “glad” the NSA is snooping in phone records, Graham says snail mail could be targeted if necessary. In a Yahoo News report Tuesday, Graham said he would censor mail like it was during WWII, In World War II, the mentality of the public was that our whole way of life was at risk, we’re all in. We censored the mail. When you wrote a letter overseas, it got censored. When a letter was written back from the battlefield to home, they looked at what was in the letter to make sure they were not tipping off the enemy,” Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don’t think it is.” Concerning “whistleblower” Edward Snowden, Sen. Graham tweeted Monday after calling him a felon, “I hope we follow Mr. Snowden to the ends of the earth to bring him to justice.” FLASHBACK ; Lindsey Graham Advocated Killing First Amendment http://www.infowars.com/lindsey-graham-advocates-killing-first-amendment/ In response to the idiotic and pointless burning of the Koran by a Florida pastor and the deadly riots that followed in Afghanistan, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has proposed limiting the First Amendment. ... ... --------------------------------------------------------- http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/free-flow-of-information-act-targets.html The fact that the US Senate is now defining what a journalist actually is sets a dangerous precedent threatening the present marketplace of ideas that in recent history has been greatly expanded by the internet. According to the text of an amendment sponsored by Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin to the proposed “Free Flow of Information Act” that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, only salaried journalists will be given the free press protections guaranteed to all US citizens by the Constitution. Under such a law presumably only the news reporters and analysts employed by moderate-to-substantial revenue-generating news entities are regarded as “legitimate” journalists. This is because the Feinstein-Durbin amendment’s wording is especially vague on exactly what type of news organization the writer needs to be affiliated with to be able to comment and report freely. ... ... If such legislation achieves passage free speech will be diminished as thousands of independent journalists conducting valid research into a variety of malfeasance and corruption by major institutions may be open to government subpoenas and legal action by those they investigate and report on. Further, such a law paves the way for Congress to formally license journalists, which is close to happening in the United Kingdom - a perfect example posted below ; http://www.infowars.com/uk-threatened-to-shut-down-guardian-for-printing-snowden-leaks/ --------------------------------------------------------- http://www.toonaripost.com/2013/09/us-news/federal-shield-law-new-double-standard-free-speech/ Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) co-sponsored the bill with South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham to bring to the federal government protective measures for eminent journalists. Only the state of Wyoming lacks both the legislative and judicial precedents to offer protection to journalists unwilling to publically testify to confidential sources. The 1972 case of Branzburg v. Hayes caused the Supreme Court to find in a five to four decision that journalists did not hold the Constitutional Right to keep confidential information from the court simply because it was a sound business practice. It was the President who called on Senator Schumer to reintroduce a failed 2009 bill while instructing the Justice Department to develop guidelines to protect journalists according to Reuters. An Administration presiding over the Court Martial of Bradley Manning while instituting the Espionage Act more than any other Executive in history just lost a very public intelligence war for the rights to Independent Contracted Spy Edward J. Snowden after he fled to the foreign media for aid to play David against America’s Military Industrial Goliath. More oversight was needed. So perhaps the Free Flow of Information Act should not be universally seen as a Shield Law as media companies like the publisher of the Wall Street Business Journal have voiced. Democrats Dick Durbin (IL) and Diane Feinstein (CA) made sure that National Security and law enforcement interests may always pry open a local journalist. In addition, primary source aggregates that violate governmental classification protocols like WikiLeaks would not protected by the law. The law is not to protect cut-and-paste journalism or voracious blogging, but independent contractors working for a media company. Drudge Report’s Matt Drudge took to Twitter Friday to bash Feinstein as a Fascist for differentiating between an, ‘under-aged,’ blogger and reputed professional working for a masthead. Assuming that the bill gets out of the Senate, it may do so for all the wrong reasons. Senators may find themselves drawn to the bill for its censorship, grouping Information Distributors into the prosecutable and legitimate. Lord knows that might save further Administration embarrassment if the next Edward J. Snowden knew that there were federally backed Shield Laws to help him tell is stories of corruption and abuse. ... ... Under the Federal Shield Law, a suspected violation of the Espionage Act is still enough to begin a Federal search of any local journalist who harbors the illegal intent to publish secrets. (So the next Edward J. Snowden would not necessarily be protected despite his position as Free Lancing Contractor.) DOJ will report yearly the number of times it gained search warrants and subpoenas of journalists. Under new guidelines, Justice Department officials would grant 45 days to journalists to reveal sources and may grant one extension of 45 days; however, there will be no notice that reporter’s material was subpoenaed if it harms an investigation. A DOJ Director of Public Affairs & Privacy / Civil Liberties Officer will review media requests without any veto power to shield journalists at all. A News Media Group of journalists will be established to continue a dialogue established by the founding Administration in what has already been dubbed the Ministry of Truth as a representation the Administration’s Bully Pulpit. Writers would lose all privileges in cases mitigating death, kidnapping and bodily harm. In cases of crime, writers could only withhold information if the crime was leaking but only for so long. Senator John Coryn of Texas, one of five Republicans against the bill, stated, ‘A new law is not what we need.’ --------------------------------------------------------- http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/26/Exclusive-Cornyn-Rips-Schumer-s-Media-Shield-Law The number two Republican in the Senate is lambasting a media “shield law” proposed by New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, potentially imperiling its shot at passage. “This is a bad idea and one whose time has not come,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate minority whip, told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview. “Believe me, we will not be rolled over.” Schumer’s “Free Flow of Information Act” passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in September, and he recently said he already has the 60 votes needed to pass the bill on the floor. “We’ll get a few more Republicans, not many more, but we have the 60 votes,” Schumer told reporters in New York last week. He's bluffing, Cornyn retorts. “If he had the votes to pass it, it already would have been passed,” Cornyn says, adding, “This isn’t about passing legislation, this is about distracting the public’s attention and changing the subject from the failed policies of this administration. I think you could put this in that same category.” Schumer's proposal would exempt a “covered journalist” from subpoenas and other legal requirements to expose their confidential sources in leak investigations and other areas. Other lawmakers have proposed similar ideas in the past, but the effort gained new momentum after a series of revelations about controversial tactics the Justice Department was using to target journalists. For instance, the Department of Justice secretly monitored Fox News reporter James Rosen in the course of a leak investigation, even claiming in a court filing he was a subject of investigation himself. In another instance, the government had secretly monitored numerous phone lines used by the Associated Press, including one in the U.S. Capitol. Cornyn says Schumer's proposal is fatally flawed and may be an unworkable idea altogether. “They want to pick and choose which journalists are covered,” the Texan Republican told Breitbart News. “In other words, if you’re a blogger they might not cover you, but if you work for the New York Times they might. Given the changes in the way we get information and the way we consume news, that really smacks to me in essence of government licensing who’s an official ‘journalist’ for the purposes of a shield law and who’s not. If there is one thing I can glean from the First Amendment, it is that government should not be in the business of licensing the news media.” In practice, defining who is considered a “journalist” and protected under the law from having to disclose confidential sources is a thorny legal problem. On the one hand, the law’s drafters don’t want to provide blanket immunity to everyone. But anointing a government-approved class of scribes cuts against the nature of journalism, which almost by definition is frequently critical of the government. “It’s totally inconsistent with the notion of a free press and the First Amendment,” Cornyn said. His “fundamental problem” with the bill, though, is that it would exempt journalists from being subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury if they witness a crime. “For example, if you’ve witnessed a crime taking place, you or I would both have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and come to testify to what we’ve seen. This idea of saying you could have information about a crime and you are immunized to having to partake in a basic act of American citizenship strikes me as pretty odd to say the least,” he says. Cornyn, who just breezed past a primary challenge from Rep. Steve Stockman, notes it’s more than a bit ironic that Senate Democrats are championing the bill while their party's president wreaks havoc on press freedoms. Cornyn believes the bill’s timing – and the administration’s backing of it – appears to be aimed at alleviating criticism of the Justice Department’s secret attainment of Associated Press phone conversations and the administration’s similar actions against Fox News’s James Rosen, among other media targeting. “You remember when this was recently resurrected?” Cornyn asks. “It was essentially an attempt to deflect... from the Department of Justice and this administration... the criticism they were taking [from] James Rosen and other traditional journalists. So, I really question the timing of all of this.” Finally, Cornyn raises concerns about the proposal's champion – Schumer. The mere fact that Schumer is the one pushing this bill is something that should send alarm bells off throughout the Congress, Cornyn says. “My antennae are always very sensitive whenever he is on the march,” he says, noting the New York Democrat openly declared war on the Tea Party in a Center for American Progress speech earlier this year. Cornyn says that the bill would very likely exclude bloggers and would definitely exclude citizen journalists and other new media practitioners, those who may practice journalism but not in the employ of a major newspaper or television network, from being government-defined “journalists.” As such, it could end up hurting conservatives because many of the most widely-read new media figures are on the right. “Well, you remember, a few years ago there was a discussion about the Fairness Doctrine, and whether they would go after talk radio,” Cornyn says. “Talk radio, I think, the left feels as a threat. Now, you know, you start to put the dots together and the FCC’s recent discussion about placing monitors in newsrooms, you begin to see that this administration wants to control the information that people get and particularly any information that might be critical of them – which is, as you pointed out in the first instance... the function of a free press: to give people unbiased and factual information they can use to make their own decisions, not to collaborate with government in squashing speech that people find unfavorable,” he adds. Cornyn says he will “absolutely” be whipping against the bill and doubts the Republican-controlled House would pass it anyway. --------------------------------------------------------- Don’t be duped - it’s a trojan horse for censorship. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/s987-113/show https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s987/text n3tBin

pastebin - collaborative debugging

pastebin is a collaborative debugging tool allowing you to share and modify code snippets while chatting on IRC, IM or a message board.

This site is developed to XHTML and CSS2 W3C standards. If you see this paragraph, your browser does not support those standards and you need to upgrade. Visit WaSP for a variety of options.

n3tBin / Home / Archive

Copyright © 2007-2011, n3t-t3z Team

Syntax Highlighting:
To highlight particular lines, prefix each line with @@
Pressing TAB inserts 3 spaces