Mike Rogers Aims to Criminalize One of the Main Things that Affords Journalists Protections: Getting Paid

Remember DOJ’s efforts to placate journalists (rather stunningly, in retrospect, rolled out a month after the first Edward Snowden leaks)?

As I noted at the time, DOJ’s new protections for the press applied not to the act of journalism, but rather to members of the news media. DOJ’s own Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide requires institutional affiliation before they’ll treat someone as a journalist.

“News media” includes persons and organizations that gather, report or publish news, whether through traditional means (e.g., newspapers, radio, magazines, news service) or the on-line or wireless equivalent. A “member of the media” is a person who gathers, reports, or publishes news through the news media.

[snip]

As the term is used in the DIOG, “news media” is not intended to include persons and entities that simply make information available. Instead, it is intended to apply to a person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the general public, uses editorial skills to turn raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience, as a journalism professional. [my emphasis]

According to the DOJ, then, you have to get paid (preferably by an institution recognized to be a press) to be afforded heightened First Amendment protection as a journalist.

Except now House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers wants to criminalize that — one of the main things that warrants you protection by DOJ as a journalist, getting paid — by calling it “fencing stolen material.”

REP. ROGERS: You — there have been discussions about selling of access to this material to both newspaper outlets and other places. Mr. Comey, to the best of your knowledge, is fencing stolen material — is that a crime?

DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY: Yes, it is.

REP. ROGERS: And would be selling the access of classified material that is stolen from the United States government — would that be a crime?

DIR. COMEY: It would be. It’s an issue that can be complicated if it involves a news-gathering and news promulgation function, but in general, fencing or selling stolen property is a crime.

REP. ROGERS: So if I’m a newspaper reporter for — fill in the blank — and I sell stolen material, is that legal because I’m a newspaper reporter?

[snip]

REP. ROGERS: And if I’m hocking stolen classified material that I’m not legally in possession of for personal gain and profit, is that not a crime?

DIR. COMEY: I think that’s a harder question because it involves a news-gathering functions — could have First Amendment implications. It’s something that probably would be better answered by the Department of Justice.

REP. ROGERS: So entering into a commercial enterprise to sell stolen material is acceptable to a legitimate news organization?

DIR. COMEY: I’m not sure I’m able to answer that question in the abstract.

REP. ROGERS: It’s something we ought to think about, is it not?

DIR. COMEY: Certainly.

So you’re not a journalist (and get no protections) if you don’t get paid. But if you do get paid, you’re fencing stolen property.

I do hope the traditional press recognizes the danger in this stance.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

15 Responses to Mike Rogers Aims to Criminalize One of the Main Things that Affords Journalists Protections: Getting Paid

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel And the flight attendant encouraging everyone to take whatever seat they want? It's like chaos paradise on this flight.
8mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @taylormattd The article's error is IMO about as serious as your own.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @taylormattd It didn't include a screen cap? Oh wait. It did.
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @taylormattd You agree she was SoS "in 2013"?
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @tpabob46 Pretty much what she did; "uniformed military, platinum, gold, 1, 2, 3, 4 are free to board."
19mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @taylormattd Yup. And your tweets, which claimed she wasn't SoS in 2013, was just as inaccurate.
22mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Gate agent rebelling against zone boarding for 50-seat airplane is my hero if the day.
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @DKThomp: Hillary would b the least popular Democratic nom in modern history *and* have the best approval gap over an opponent https://t…
33mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @taylormattd Sentence you did not screen cap is clearly wrong. But month (which comes from Fox) is key to that.
33mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV I've informed my family they have a choice of what to get me for Father's Day. (1) Chris Archer Stormtrooper bobblehead. or (2) A Boxster
36mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @dispositive Welcome back! easy solution: shop at the Farmers and Coop.
42mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @taylormattd Nat (the correct spelling is "Marcy"): read your tweets. And then either retract or clarify them.
43mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2014
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728