seen from Italy
seen from Brazil
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from Türkiye
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Yemen
seen from Germany
seen from Austria
seen from Singapore
seen from Austria
seen from Yemen
seen from United States
New York county clerk blocks Texas abortion telehealth suit
Source: BBC
https://search.app/USSii
The case has pitted one Texas' abortion ban against New York's shield law for abortion providers
Does this mean that if a state wanted to, they could make suicide legal, then use Shield laws to protect doctors sending suicide drugs to other states?
Also, is that telehealth doctor licensed in Texas? Or is that also under that Shield law?
Bill Defends Reporters’ Communication Records Against Government Seizure
Bill Defends Reporters’ Communication Records Against Government Seizure
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) released new legislation to protect reporters and journalists against unnecessary government surveillance that can chill First Amendment activities. SUMMARY OF BILLTEXT OF BILL Wyden proposed these new legal restrictions on government surveillance of reporters following recent revelations about the Trump administration’s abusive, politicized surveillance of…
View On WordPress
Law on Mass Media Shield Law 2019 signed yesterday, effective 15 days after pub
Law on Mass Media Shield Law 2019 signed yesterday, effective 15 days after publication (this will be taken up in class instead of RA 1477. As stated before: class members who are not prepared will not get any points)
Photos and images by Palace beat reporter Joseph Morong on Twitter
View On WordPress
RICHMOND — Two delegates, both former journalists, introduced legislation Monday to protect student journalists from censorship and shield reporters from having to disclose confidential sources.
There is still contention over the definition of the word journalist, and concerns that any attempt to enshrine reporters' privilege could make those that don't fit precisely even more vulnerable. Republican Sen. John Cornyn and many conservative pundits have opposed the bill on the basis it could disadvantage bloggers and other non-traditional journalists. It also has an exception for situations involving future threats to national security. The news organizations supporting the bill note that it has a "safety valve" for bloggers and others who might slip through the cracks, because it allows a judge to declare someone a covered journalist. "This bill has judicial oversight, that extra person to say that if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's a duck," Cuillier said.
Pressure, potential for a federal shield law - Journalism activists say protection for reporters is long overdue | Columbia Journalism Review
This is Diane Feinstein discussing the Shield Law in which she states that the First Amendment is "a privilege." While the main goal is to protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources in federal cases, the bill is quite problematic as it, in part, allows for the government to define who is and who is not a journalist.
Concerning the Shield Law
From US News:
The proposed law would allow the government to seize reporters' records without notifying them for 45 days – a period of time that could be renewed by a judge 45 additional days – if investigators convince a judge pre-notification "would pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation." When the AP's phone records were taken without notice to the news organization – bypassing Justice Department guidelines advising notice and negotiation with the media company – the government used just such an exception, saying notice would "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."
From Firedoglake:
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…
That person must also have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information concerning local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest.” Or, that person should be engaged in the “regular gathering, preparation, collection, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing on such matters.”
A person would also qualify as a “covered journalist” if they had experience in journalism and had “substantially contributed, as an author, editor, photographer, or producer, to a significant number of articles, stories, programs, or publications” in the past twenty years. As Feinstein said, it would “cover a legitimate journalist such as a Dan Rather who leaves his media entity and takes to publishing freelance stories on the web.” [Note: Rather didn't "leave"; he was fired for reporting a story on President George W. Bush.]
Problems with the Shield Law
From Techdirt:
Legislators are still trying to put together a national "shield" law for journalists (this is the third such effort at a national level) and, as usual, are bogged down in a semantic debate about who should qualify for these protections. Despite "freedom of the press" being hardwired into the system and the fact that a government effort to protect journalists from its own actions (seeking to identify whistleblowers and sources in order to punish them or shut them up) lies somewhere between "ironic" and "disingenuous," the pursuit of a credible "shield" law continues. The bill's definition of a "journalist" seems straight forward enough:
The bill defines a journalist as a person who has a "primary intent to investigate events and procure material" in order to inform the public by regularly gathering information through interviews and observations.
It also adds this stipulation, which is a bit more troublesome.
The person also must intend to report on the news at the start of obtaining any protected information and must plan to publish that news.
[...]
But onto the "who's really a journalist" argument. Some elected officials feel the language in the bill isn't specific enough. One in particular, Dianne Feinstein, repeated the stupid but inevitable phrase that always accompanies discussions related to shield laws:
Feinstein suggested that the definition comprise only journalists who make salaries, saying it should be applied just to "real reporters."
This is nothing new for Feinstein, who's (along with Sen. Dick Durbin) previously made the argument that acts of journalism can only be performed by major news agencies,cutting everyone else out of the protective loop.
According to former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the law is
“fraught with near-meaningless ambiguity” about who is treated as a “covered journalist.” For example, he says that the legislation wouldn’t protect leakers like Edward Snowden or Julian Assange but would likely cover a correspondent for the Iranian state news agency Fars or the Chinese state news agency Xinhua.
And he says the bill would also give judges too much power to decide on their own whether the disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest and thus not protected.
Unfortunately the bill currently has the votes to pass the Senate and Obama supports this Shield Law
Find breaking news, multimedia, reviews & opinion on Washington, business, sports, movies, travel, books, jobs, education, real estate, cars & more at nytimes.com.
