The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday took up a federal reporter shield law for the second time this year, after getting caught up back in July over the definition of a journalist. This time around, however, the committee passed it, marking the first time a shield bill has moved since 2009, when momentum behind a very similar measure died an unfortunate death after the Wikileaks affair. Despite some flaws, it's on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government transparency.
The recent revelations that the Justice Department has aggressively investigated members of the news media in several high-profile leaks inquiries have breathed new life into the measure, which would add federal protections on top of the 49 states that already "shield" reporters from having to disclose their sources and work product.
So, how is the bill from a civil liberties point of view? The truth is, despite several unnecessary provisions that weaken its protections, it can't be anything but positive. The status quo is unacceptable. Championed by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the bill has been harried by both Democrats and Republicans on several fronts. That it lives to fight another vote is a very good thing.
The biggest change between this bill and S. 448, which died in 2009, is who's covered by the legislation. In 2009 (prior to Wikileaks being a thing), the bill had a narrow-ish definition of journalist, skewed to the legacy media, but still possibly inclusive of professional bloggers, citizen reporters, and other new media types.
Following Wikileaks, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) pushed for a much narrower definition that, most troublingly, would not cover anyone "whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity's work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization." In other words (they hope): Wikileaks.
But, the new bill, while adopting the crabbed Feinstein definition, also has a safety valve that may, depending on how it's implemented, end up being quite positive. It would allow a judge discretion to expand the scope of the act to anyone if the judge determines it "would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities."
Now, if you actually go and look at Wikileaks (wikileaks.org), it's far from just an indiscriminate site for document dumps. The site's authors collate, curate, and comment on the material they source—much like any other news organization. Maybe wishful thinking, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that a federal judge—looking at how Wikileaks and similar outlets actually operate, not how they're portrayed in the press—will avail these new media sources of the law's protections.
Admittedly, it's far from perfect. It also threatens to open the door to a First Amendment advocate's worst nightmare—inconsistent and possibly selective application of an overly vague rule. But, it's a far sight better than the original anti-Wikileaks definition.
We've also expressed serious concern with several carve-outs in the bill. In particular, the national security exception is fundamentally unnecessary and would likely and inappropriately exempt the AP and subpoenas, as well as the James Rosen case. But, the bill maintains protections for criminal defendants, allowing them to pierce the privilege when necessary to protect due process. Advocates can also continue to push for improvements as it moves through the Senate and, hopefully, the House.
All in all, this is a good first step toward a more informed populace in America.
Learn more about the first amendment and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.