Posted by Schumer-Graham-F on March Thu 27th 6:54 PM - Never Expires
download | new post

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
Submit a correction or amendment below. (click here to make a fresh posting)
After submitting an amendment, you'll be able to view the differences between the old and new posts easily.
Syntax Highlighting:
To highlight particular lines, prefix each line with @@
Pressing TAB inserts 3 spaces
Paste Name
How long should your post be retained?
a day a month forever
Password (Optional)
pastebin - collaborative debugging

Recent Posts

Posted by Schumer-Graham-F on March Thu 27th 6:54 PM - Never Expires
download | new post

pastebin - collaborative debugging

Recent Posts

Posted by Schumer-Graham-F on March Thu 27th 6:54 PM - Never Expiresdownload | new post

Posted by Schumer-Graham-F on March Thu 27th 6:54 PM - Never Expires
download | new post
