My dad met Judith Miller once in the mid-70’s. She was dating an acquaintance of his at the time and they all went out for drinks one night. He remembers being impressed by her, a feeling he says was only reinforced in recent months by her willingness to go to prison rather than name her source in the Valerie Plame leak case.
Now, Miller is supporting a bill that was proposed by Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN). The bill, called the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, would prevent reporters from being held in contempt of court for refusing to name sources, even when subpoenaed. What remains to be seen is whether bloggers will fall under the definition of “journalists.”
“As to who is a reporter, this will be a subject of debate as this bill goes farther along,” Lugar said to a throng of reporters. “Are bloggers journalists or [are they] some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?”
The bill’s language currently covers “any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form” - a description that could well apply to the blogosphere. But like all legislation before Congress, the bill is subject to revision before passage and interpretation by the courts when it is applied.
The issue has raged on for some time, with a number of excellent points leveled on both sides. Those who believe the law should cover bloggers argue that the act of covering a story makes someone a journalist, whether they work for an official publication or a blog they built themselves. Others say that because bloggers are not held to the same standards of journalistic ethics and do not want to be liable for slander or libel claims that they do not fall under the journalistic heading.
As a blogger, I hold myself to the same standards of ethical conduct that I would if I were working for a newspaper. I don’t slander people or spread falsehoods. Mostly I use my blog to express my own viewpoint and offer analysis of issues already being discussed in the blogosphere or in the press.
But were I standing in Judith Miller’s shoes, I would like to believe that I would be willing to go to prison to protect an anonymous source. I don’t think I should have to. But like Laine Hanson said in The Contender, “principles only mean something if you stick by them when they’re inconvenient.”
I understand that many bloggers aren’t as ethical as Andrew Sullivan or the good people at The Left Coaster. But there are reporters who don’t live up to their professional ethical codes either - anyone remember Jayson Blair? The definition of journalist as it is intended for this piece of legislation most certainly applies to him.
Bloggers may not be reporters in the same sense that Judith Miller is a reporter, but we derive our right to speak freely from the same piece of the Constitution. We write about issues of great importance, we offer discourse, and we serve the purposes of the fourth estate.
We live in a nation of laws, which nobody is above. It is commonly understood that the 14th amendment requires that laws be equally applied in the same manner to all persons who exist in similar conditions and circumstances. Therefore it is my opinion that to deny bloggers protection under the Free Flow of Information Act would be an unconstitutional violation of our 14th amendment right to equal protection under the laws.
