What is Digg?58 Comments
- fpcyber, on 10/10/2007, -12/+33Bloggers are usually just lazy ***** who take info from other sources, usually without stating where they got it from.
- jthomp3120, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15freedom of the press is in the 1st amendment of the constitution, so it is federal homie.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20As most bloggers aren't journalists, this would be an insult to every real journalist out there.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9how many bloggers have federal sources? Don't most sources go to the major papers? I have no problem with the bill but I doubt it will affect the blogging world at all.
- axiomflash, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8just like journalists!
- rokinroj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Just because someones blog name is lolercopter69 doesn't mean they aren't being paid to help spread a "community opinion".
- willow0285, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Cases like Josh Wolf being put in jail for 7 months are why this law needs to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf
Even if bloggers aren't journalists, would you want the government being able to ask you for any information/pictures/video/thoughts that you might have about any conceivable topic? - Kewlduderules, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"A bill that would shield journalists (including bloggers) from revealing their sources today cleared the House Judiciary Committee. The Free Flow of Information Act protects journalistic sources generally, but does include several exceptions regarding TERRORISM, NATIONAL SECURITY, imminent death, and trade secret leaks"
this bill does not really change anything because journalists can still be prosecuted if anything pertains terrorism or it is regarded in terms of national security which can be quite vague and interpreted loosely.
Sounds like a smoke screen to me. - jpop, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The same could be said for some "journalists" too.
- Andronicus1717, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7There are a lot of "real journalists" out there who are no such thing as well. The profession has a serious taint associated with it without adding bloggers.
- blackfog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Take a wild guess ya ass clown
- fpcyber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I said usually, not all. Some are actually just wanna be journalists that are looking for their big break.
- Midtowner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have no problem with this. The conventional media in recent years has shown itself to be as unreliable as anyone else. Any rule only giving these protections would essentially be saying that unless you work for a multizillionaire (one has to be that sort in order to own a major newspaper, TV station, etc.), you aren't afforded the same constitutional protections insofar as your sources go.
This is great stuff really. I think the traditional media in many cases has shown itself to be inept at best and bought and paid for at worst. Are we to afford these protections to entities who run press releases and Video News Releases as if they're real news and not to the little guy who owns a website and posts his own information/findings?
Bloggers are as close as we've been in a long time to the newspapers of colonial times -- owned by honest small businessmen like Ben Franklin who made it their life's work to inform the public. In fact, taking a historical approach to the First Amendment, I would tend to believe that the 1st Amendment should protect bloggers more than it protects traditional "big media" which is now more corporate and ad driven than it is driven by its role as the fifth estate. - goobity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I always thought people getting in trouble for talking about apple speculations was a little absurd. I think the lines between blogging and journalism are blurred with websites like newsvine.com
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Better than nothing like we have now? We had a long running precedent that protected journalist sources until the Democrats destroyed it for petty political reasons.
- locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination only applies when you're being charged with a crime. That's not the case here.
- Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Didn't read the article didn't you? All was completely sound and backed up by facts and witnesses who were there. Doesn't sound like a "nutjob" to me.
- Midtowner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Kind of reminds me of the Burkett memo of the '04 campaign.. It's just that in that case, the media, Dan Rather, had a fake source which he tried to pass off as news -- sort of like these bloggers. Why should Rather be afforded more constitutional protection than the nutjob who posted the rightwinglunatic blog?
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Depends on the blogger. Someone with a history as a journalist would probably be more trusted to not roll over at a first hint of political pressure even if they're currently writing blogs. Judith Miller had the strength of will to spend 85 days in jail over it and probably would have kept going as a political prisoner if she wasn't left off the hook.
- kvncortez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Makes sense that they would give bloggers journalist rights, however whats next? intresting read.
- locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because historians and scientists don't require the sometimes confidential nature of their meetings in order to publish their work. Without a privilege, sources who once talked to journalists and provided information that could expose things of public import would no longer do so.
- SpikeLee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't think so. Journalist usually have a lot of rules that they follow in order to do what they do. Bloggers are usually not following these rules which makes what they say sketchy at normal.
- s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Journalists received information from the Bush Administration. The correct thing to do would have been to reject the information completely, given that journalism is highly competitive, the journalist didn't want to do that.
- s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3There is not special protection that is allowed journalists by law. They are simply allowed constitutional rights meant for everyone, while everyone else gets left out.
- brandon00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Let's have them spend four years to get an undergraduate degree in journalism first, and THEN let's discuss whether or not they qualify. Blogging and professional reporting are two very different things. This is a slap in the face to all serious, REAL journalists who have spent their time, money, and have made the effort to develop their professional skills.
Yet another example of the Congressional Branch getting involved in something they know nothing about.
I agree with SPJ on a lot of their stances, but this certainly isn't one of them. - fringet1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It has been said a few times and I completely agree. Journalists and bloggers are both here to stay obviously, unless free speech is destroyed. Which would obviously effect both, and everyone else. It is the responsibility of everyone to call people on their bs, to keep the integrity of the whole. Bloggers, even if rare now, will be a great balance to the biased media that currently exists. We need to work together rather than tear the other apart cause our rights have been, and are going down the drain. Just my thoughts.
- TSCheredar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This new shield is supported by the Society of Professional Journalists....If you don't believe me check out their site: www.spj.org.
And I know this because I'm a member. I strongly support the Shield law. - Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No, that one doesn't apply. You can't refuse to testify if you're a witness. That's a cornerstone of the justice system. The issue with journalist sources is not having to name someone that gives you information when you're a non-participant third party and are reporting the information to the public.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I live in the United Kingdom, I am not a "limey".
You've just proven my point - you don't understand the world outside of your country.
Limey = an English person. - austin63, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sorry homie but shield laws have always been a state issue. The constitution does provide protections on a general sense but shield laws are not related to such. The fed has no authority over such laws and it has always been a state issue. Though this sounds like a great idea, it is another illustration of the fed grabbing for additional power. Some states only protect newspapers, some news and magazines, some with broad language. Feel free to look it up HOMIE.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2What?
- chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Bloggers need protection? From what?
- Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ok, I'll bite, how about this original article?
Bin Laden Allowed to Escape For Financial Reasons:
http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2007/01/bin-laden-allowed-to-escape-for.html - consonance, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2How dare you insult the pride of the collective Internet! We are a noble breed who will not suffer your insolent disrespect!
- Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I knew limeys were dim, but damn!
- blackfog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2All the protection a blogger needs is provided to them by living in their "command centers" strategically located in their mommy's basement
- vankent45, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I have some misgivings about language in the bill, but I support it overall. What some of these people who have commented about the story about the legislation is that they don't understand that fair trial issues usually overrule shield considerations. I was aware of the bill but not about the play it was getting in blogville.
- champ20, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0i think they would not disclose their sources anyways. this bill just justifies their act
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2This has nothing to do with the freedom of the press which is about blocking the government from censoring publication and not about protecting sources.
- PueSi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Professional-Blogger? Oxymoron
- tjplaw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Professional Bloggers, now that's a concept.
- joatblog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Somehow this smacks of having to own property to be able to vote.
- SpikeLee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What about the 5th amendment?
- imreal, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5now watch all the whiny bloggers digg your comment down. this is the truth, it's rare that a blog actually has original content. many don't cite their source among a plethora of other "amateur" techniques they use
- GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1LeBron James never went to college to play basktball. Is he not a real professional basketball player?
A lot of people that are paid by newspapers to write stories do not have any formal training in journalism. Are they still "journalists"?
These shield laws seek to define the status of a person where the government has no place in doing so. Stay out of our lives. Stay out of our business. No person is above the law. - PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Could this be spurred by the recent meeting the white house held with right-wing bloggers letting them know what stance to take on executive privelage? God forbid those bloggers should do any real research into what the constitution says about that kind of thing:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_runs_conference_call_on_0727.html - jthomp3120, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1the precedent is that other forms of media can protect their sources, a right given to them by the 1st amendment. This will be extending that precedent to blogging.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Why did I know that would get dig downs from left wing hypocrits?
- knowltonj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0start a blog.
- GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1No person deserves any special protection in the law, especially journalists. They just collect information, edit it, then report it. If you give a journalist protection, then why not historians? What about scientists? It goes on and on.
If a journalist is part and parcel to covering up a crime then they must testify or face criminal prosecution. Suspects have the right to a fair trial. Any protection for journalists refusing to testify when their testimony may prove the innocence of the suspect is absolutely vital to their defense.
All of these shield laws must be defeated. -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is