A section of the proposed Free Flow of Information Act advocates that certain bloggers receive a key legal protection that is currently reserved for journalists. This would relieve some of the legal risks that bloggers face every day. The Columbia Journalism Review and OJR both have more.
The bill, which has been submitted in both the House and Senate, expands the definition of journalists to news-gathering bloggers. This means that a federal judge would need to approve any subpoena any information that protects a blogger's confidential sources - what's commonly known as the Shield Law. There have been previous efforts to pass such a law.
The Editor's Weblog notes that until now, only bloggers who work for "a newsgathering organization" were protected. This bill, if passed, would extend such protections.
Now, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but on the surface this all feels mushy. For starters, what's a "newsgathering organization" in this new environment? For example, the TechCrunch network, Gawker Media and other big blog network all actively chase news and break it. Are they protected under the current law in such a scenario where there is a confidential source?
Further, if the new act passes there is the open question of what is a news blogger. Some bloggers break news and then in the next post go back to talking about what they had for breakfast. The lines get even blurrier when you consider social news sites like digg and, of course, entirely new animals like Twitter.
I don't envy lawyers or lawmakers right now. There are lots of shades of grey here and I suspect courts will test any law over and over again with various decisions - should the bill even pass. Any legal eagles out there? Please weigh in.
