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 Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+2Email to someone

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @walterwkatz If only there were a solution, like.....open and transparent accountability!
39sreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz Think the reverse also true too; people who believe there is gross deficiency in police accountability have negative views.
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JulieATate Look on the bright side. Starting this weekend you've got a QB controversy to look forward to.
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Espngreeny Again, Gibson in 1967.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @speechboy71 Btu as I said, those three questions should be fairly basic for anyone making claims you made in your review. @henryfarrell
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @speechboy71 Started by pointing out things you were unaware of. You still make claims appear inadequately informed to make @henryfarrell
10mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Espngreeny You might go back and watch Bob gibson in 1967. Gibson 3-0, 3CG,27 IP, 1.00ERA, 26 K's Tough call between the two; both great.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @speechboy71 Those questions are all ones you would need to be able to answer to make claims you made in C4 review. Surely you know answers.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Also, phone vibrating noisily! RT @OKnox: #monster RT @samsteinhp to the guy in front of me who thinks i’m typing too loudly…. get over it.
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @speechboy71 What are the ways back door searches get used?
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @speechboy71 How big was 215 watchlist compared to Minaret watchlist?
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @speechboy71 OK: How many times in Reggie Walton's tenure did govt not tell him relevant data, that we know of?
17mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2014
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728