House Passes Media Shield Law, But Bush Promises To Veto

Editor & Publisher, AP:

Saying the free flow of information must not be choked off, the House on Tuesday took up a media shield bill to protect the confidentiality of reporters' sources in most federal court cases. The White House, warning that the bill would encourage leaks of classified information, threatened a veto.

The House overwhelmingly approved the bill Tuesday. The measure was passed on a bipartisan vote, 398-21, with 176 Republicans joining virtually all Democrats to support the bill.

Read the whole story: Editor & Publisher, AP

Comments

[mamacat]

Dubya may not realise it, but with about 90% of the Congresspeople voting for it, his veto is meaningless.

[LenP]

You are soooo right, mamacat!

[MetalPhil]

Don't worry, the lockstep senate will only pass it with a small majority which will allow the President to veto it.

[fact finder]

mamacat; Naw he will just issue an executive order or signing statement voiding it.

[LIR]

Hope it's veto proof, so press and Congress can give Dubyah a big middle finger...

[johnnyjust]

Why should a reporter, of all people, have immunity for disclosing or reporting on issues of national security?

They're nobody.

[JewishJesus]

I KNEW there would be some fascist to come along and ruin my morning tryst with womwn in his family,again!!!

[JewishJesus]

Listen,dolt, provisions are in the bill for exceptions concerning national security. Don't you read before you post? Sorry....what a dumb question!!!! OF COURSE NOT!!!!

[tomsfork]

Neocons can read?

[JewishJesus]

How were the billygoats last night,troll???

[Ramirez]

So what's a "reporter"? Doctors I can recognize. They have a degree. Same with lawyers. And headshrinkers. And for that matter, priests.

But "reporters"? Did they pass a bar exam? Are they ordained? Did they finish their residency? Or do they just call themselves reporters because they write on a blog, send out a newsletter or work on a newspaper?

How can you give a de facto shield from federal testimony to a class of people who cannot be clearly defined?

I really hope I'm wrong and this obvious loophole was worked out in the legislation.

[getoffmedz]

Ramirez - and your credentials are . . . . . ?

[Ramirez]

I'm an interested citizen. Is that enough?

[ronspri]

Geez, I am constantly suprised at the level of brownshirttedness in the radical right. No doubt why they call them radicals. Ramirez, apparently you have no clue how close you and I are to losing our Constitution and our country. Noted people from the right and left have said as much. You just keep listening to your radical wingnuts. Feign intelligence by being stupid.

[fact finder]

ronspri; If you will look at every thing that Congress and the impostor have done since 2000 you will se that it is already gone. Just waiting for the velvet glove to come off.

[Ramirez]

Thanks for your interest, ronspri, but it's not about me.

Do you think that reporters (whatever that means) should be able to refuse to reveal the identity of their sources in most federal cases?

[tomsfork]

Why do they have to be classified? The Constitution (y'know, that piece of paper no Republican has ever read) gives ALL of us the right to free speech. A reporter, then, is one who reports.