Stupid Law Making Assaulting Journalists A Federal Crime Revived By Congress
from the scoring-cheap-points-to-impress-the-cheapest-seats dept
As an overreaction to President Trump's mostly-hyperbolic verbal attacks on the journalism profession, a few legislators from the other side of the political fence have revived their stupid idea from last year. Here's the law's author in his own words twit:
A #freepress is essential to a healthy democracy. We must send a strong, clear message that such violence will not be tolerated – that’s why I introduced the Journalist Protection Act today w/ @SenBlumenthal & @SenatorMenendez. 2/2 pic.twitter.com/7ixXQfurGF
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) March 12, 2019
If you can't read/see this tweet, consider yourself lucky. Here it is in all its hashtagged glory:
A #freepress is essential to a healthy democracy. We must send a strong, clear message that such violence will not be tolerated – that’s why I introduced the Journalist Protection Act today w/ @SenBlumenthal & @SenatorMenendez.
This dumb law was defended in an inane but noisy statement by Rep. Eric Swalwell.
“From tweeting #FakeNews to proclaiming his contempt for the media during campaign rallies, the president has created a hostile environment for members of the press,” said Swalwell in a statement. “We must protect journalists in every corner of our country if they are attacked physically while doing their job, and send a strong, clear message that such violence will not be tolerated.
Yes. Swalwell's official statement on his zombie legislation contained a hashtag. Here's what the "Journalist Protection Act" [PDF] does: turns an existent crime into a slightly worse crime if the victim is someone the federal government considers a journalist. "Bodily injury" or "serious bodily injury" are the flavors of the felony enhancement, adding 3-to-6 years to violators' sentences respectively.
Fortunately, the definition for journalist is broad enough to keep bloggers and livestreamers in the loop. Unfortunately, this just means more people are going to face enhanced sentences for harming members of our nation's newest protected group.
Once again: this isn't a good idea for anyone. It's never a good idea to give extra protections to people who practice certain careers, whether they're journalists or cops. Blues Lives Matter laws elevate cops above the people they serve. The Journalist Protection Act makes journalists' lives worth more than those of the people they cover. One set of laws is "justified" by an imaginary "war on cops." The other is "justified" by a bunch of boneheaded public statements by the Blowhard in Chief.
In both cases, the only thing happening is legislators scoring easy points preaching to the converted… and hoping the converted remember the stupidity they enacted in their names when reelection time comes around.
No real journalist should want this. Unfortunately, a bunch of journalistic groups are acting like it's just the thing this nation's been missing. The Society of Professional Journalists is offering its endorsement. So is the NewsMedia Alliance. Scrolling through the feed of tweets referencing this law reveals a disappointing number of journalist groups buying into this bullshit. This administration does pose a threat to journalism, but it takes the form of a crackdown on whistleblowers and placing journalists under surveillance, if not under indictment. It has very little to do with Trump encouraging physical violence against members of the press.
This isn't anything any member of these groups should honestly want, unless they're cool with legislators turning cops, bank CEOs, international arms dealers, bitcoin speculators, or other groups of people a certain percentage of the public finds loathsome into "protected classes." If it's cool for your own kind, you can't bitch too much when it starts elevating exactly the sort of people you don't like.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bob menendez, eric walwell, extra crimes, journalism, journalism protection act, journalists lives matter, protection, richard blumenthal
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Equal protection and justice under the law. Some animals are more equal than others.
made the First Word by Madd the Sane
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sub Rosa Reasons
Isn't this just an underhanded way for the government to try to define who is and who is not a journalist? Accepting that it is the activity rather than the person or organization or method of distribution seems really hard for those with the thirst for power and control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
They have already done this.
I think it's a good law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
"I think it's a good law."
Why?
Specifically, what does it achieve that existing assault laws do not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
It protects those who are representing the public as members of the press. Police and first responders deserve similar protections. Today, people interfere with government too much, and that should stop.
I favor order over freedom, which is a bit more conservative than most. I don't see the need for uber-free speech when everything can be recorded anyway. Most every elected official since Jefferson has abused power.
Perhaps they could make journalists wear bodycams to qualify for protection under this law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not, but the fact that you apparently missed the Animal Farm reference lower down and/or took it as a good thing does not bode well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason does someone’s choice in career — and to be clear, it is a choice to become a police officer or firefighter or journalist — automatically make them deserving of special protections under the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
"It protects those who are representing the public as members of the press. Police and first responders deserve similar protections."
Existing assault laws do all of this.
What "Blue lives matters" and this "journalist protection act" accomplish is one thing only - it assigns different worth on human lives depending on an occupation in LAW.
In other words it turns the law from being "equal for all" to "some people are more equal than others" which is basically what is usually quoted as a good reason to assign rogue status to a nation.
So this is a shit idea. It's already illegal to assault people. making it more illegal to assault a certain kind of people just opens the door on admitting that the law isn't going to be equal for everyone after all. Last time that was demonstrated was when the british empire lost its colonies - including the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
But what do you bet that if it's a cop assaulting/harassing a journalist (like that Techdirt story from two days ago), this law won't do a damn thing. And like the Nevada thing from yesterday it may only help certain journalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
True in both cases (btw, i was the one posting above, forgot to sign in).
So this type of law is also inconsistently applied which is yet another reason not to consider it. I'm not too keen on legislation which has the effect of stratifying society.
Jim Crow and Baghdad Bob/Bobmail/Blue may not agree with me there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
"It protects those who are representing the public as members of the press. "
"Police and first responders deserve similar protections."
" Today, people interfere with government too much, and that should stop."
"Perhaps they could make journalists wear bodycams to qualify for protection under this law?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
*"Police and first responders deserve similar protections."
They have protections in place currently that are not being followed, what will these new protections do for them?*
It gives Prosecutors more leverage to force a plea agreement.
They heap on every charge that they can think of to create a possible sentence of a few gajillion years. This would be just one more - with the added threat of Federal time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
"They heap on every charge that they can think of to create a possible sentence of a few gajillion years. This would be just one more - with the added threat of Federal time."
Enough laws exist to make that a reality already. "Throwing the book" at someone in the US today means in theory there's always a case for having someone do hard time forever almost no matter the crime. The "Three strikes" paradigm in many states viewed in the background of how many perfectly unwitting citizens casually and unknowingly break laws on a daily basis already means one DA off his rocker and we end up with a very dystopian reality playing out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
They have already done what? Define who is or isn't a journalists? What law was that? My search may have been inadequate but I only came up with discussion about shield laws, which are by the states, not the feds, and those do not identify the 'nature' of journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sub Rosa Reasons
This is the law of the land saying if anyone is going to assault journalists, we want the first shot at it. That's the obvious interpretation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg Gianforte notwithstanding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equal protection and justice under the law. Some animals are more equal than others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most definitely, and that will always be the case.
Why am I supposed to care about this? My time is valuable (to me).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Four legs good, two legs bad -> Four legs good, two legs better
I take it you haven't read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.
If you have /r/whoosh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then maybe you should spend less of it letting people know how much you don’t care about things. Because no one gives a shit about your performative apathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Protip: If you ever find yourself reading an article on the Internet, and wondering "Should I post a comment to tell everyone how much I don't care about the thing the article is about?", the answer is "No." It is always "No."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Especially if the takeaway from that comment is intended to be "my time is valuable".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Well, keep doing it. Eventually, you'll get numb to the pain."
21st century medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Remember how many times this same fucker said he didn't care about Article 13?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presumably this law only extends protections if said journalists are assaulted by members of the public. I assume that law enforcement will be free to continue their assault on journalists as (allegedly) occurred in Ferguson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One would think this law was to protect journalists from law enforcement.
Apparently that is not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course not, that would require them to not only admit but make a public statement that the police can do bad things, even to the point that people might need protection from them, which would have the police unions(at the least) calling for the heads/resignations of any politician who would dare to question the moral character of the police and suggest that it's anything less than perfectly flawless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and that would even kind of make sense. It would even be within legitimate Federal authority. But no, pretty sure that isn't what's going on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We must protect journalists in every corner of our country if they are attacked physically while doing their job, and send a strong, clear message that such violence will not be tolerated."
If only we had laws in place already to deal with assaulting journalists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If only we had laws in place already to deal with assaulting journalists..."
You need to put an /s at the end of that so people know you're being sarcastic. Baghdad Bob/Bobmail/Blue/Jhon already proved that to a very few people what you just said as a joke they believe in earnest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy way to fix this
There's a way to make this law better all around.
add that the assault has to be performed by an agent of the government acting under color of authority, removing qualified/absolute immunity. After all, when the local cops are the ones doing the assaulting, then yes, THEN you need the federal oversight. And by the same token, if a free press is so essential they need this kind of protection, the very people they'd most need it from are the government they're supposed to be monitoring.
but not just law enforcement, politicians (Gianforte for instance) or the local road crew who the sheriff would sic on someone and then decline to arrest for lack of evidence. etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy way to fix this
We already have 42 USC 1983 for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
that's a civil action for deprevation of rights.
It's not a criminal action for assault which would remove immunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy way to fix this
You've gotten the intent of the law(s) backwards.
"Special" assault laws and "sentence enhancements" on cops, firefighters, EMT's and such were intended only in the case of during the performance on their duties.
Public Safety measures. You don't want the local rockheads throwing bricks or shooting at the people trying to keep the neighborhood from burning down.
They were never intended (yeah, yeah, I know - lobbyists) to give special protections to such people when they were OFF duty.
As to "journalists"... we DO need a legal definition of such if we are going to pass laws or give special considerations to journalists.
I had a Press Pass in the eighties (photographer) issued by the County police department. Had to show a couple of pay stubs from a news agency, get my picture taken, and wait two weeks for it to show up in the mail. Some pittance fees needed to be paid as well.
Frankly, it now seems that anyone with a cell phone can declare themselves a "journalist" and demand special protections - like not naming a source, being permitted to cross the tape, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
Right... and that's illegal already.
So, do these special statuses for certain groups actually work? Do they reduce violence against those groups? The laws for cops have been around awhile, and it's a reasonable question to ask before extending them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
In the first case, if you throw a brick at a firefighter while they're standing around minding their own business, you get charged with the same as if you'd thrown the brick at the local dog walker.
When you assault that same firefighter while they're fighting a fire, you put the entire neighborhood at risk, so there are additional penalties.
As to protected groups, no. The creation of ANY protected group is obvious discrimination against everyone NOT of that group.
That said, if you're going to create such groups anyway, you need to actually define what constitutes a member.
What makes a journalist? A degree in Journalism? Pay stubs from a News Agency? Owning a cell phone? Web space?
IMO, anyone who claims "Journalist" as their main source of income on their IRS tax paperwork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
That reaction is understandable, and we could go to all kinds of trouble defining terms like "firefighter" and "journalist" and arguing about how much to add to the sentence. Does it do anything other than make us feel good? Does it improve public safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
Throwing a rock at an "off duty" firefighter is simple assault, and you'd be charged with that if it was a waitress and not a firefighter.
It's a crime against a single person.
If you vandalize a fire hydrant so it can't be used, you're on the same level of "who" your crime is against as if you'd thrown a brick at a firefighter working a fire.
The rationale makes sense. How it's enforced and frequently abused is another matter entirely. And I can't envision any manner in which a "journalist" on or off "duty" can have the same applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So basically cops with blogs will be the highest class citizen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second highest - just below celebrity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, third highest. Thin-skinned heads of state are on the top....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have wondered about the organized crime hierarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think corporations fall between celebrities and snowflakes-in-chief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't need any more laws to protect them, they just pay off a politicians do their bidding...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this apply to cops?
Or do they still get a pass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's interesting that the Twitter inanity is coming from Eric Swalwell, most recently famous for wanting to nuke gun owners. Apparently Rep. Swalwell's Dunning-Kruger extends to the 1st Amendment, as well as the 2nd.
This feels like a muddled mix of anti Trump virtue signaling and backdoor press restrictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being against Trump is now the bandwagon anyone can ride. For good and valid reason, alas, the same way there were crowds of crackpots and nutjobs riding the Anti-Nixon bandwagon.
When it comes to politics I'm always bipartisan - I assume the guy who ends up being elected is the crook I have to watch the hardest, because that's the asshat whose avarice has the biggest potential to do actual harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So..
if "paparazzi" are considered journalists, does that mean we'll see lots of celebrities in jail for punching them outside of nightclubs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So..
Interesting. Where does the line get drawn? What is news? Does it include private activities of celebrities, other public figures, other private figures? Where does privacy come in the course of journalism? Is everything anyone does fare for public fodder? Or should journalists be schooled in the difference between privacy and that which is appropriate for public consumption. Public officials should be scrutinized, they put themselves in the spotlight. Celebrities are another matter, though they also put themselves in the spotlight. Others however...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So..
Good point.
AFAIK, the current practice regarding paparazzi is the particular state's Stalking laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're not with us, you're against us
Law-maker: Here's a new law that will protect journalists.
Anyone else: But there are plenty of existing laws that work fine.
Law-maker: So you're against protecting journalists? You want them to get beat up, attacked, or worse? What kind of monster are you? Next you'll be saying FOSTA doesn't help victims of sex trafficking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compounded Hate Crimes
So is it now like a double life sentence for assaulting a gay, trans, Christian, black, female, reporter, working on the police force?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What one hand gives...
Yes, if you hurt a journalist, you will get that enhancement. But, if the politicians get their way, soon there will be no journalists anyway. See? No problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the same Swallwell who threatened to attack lawful American gun owners with nuclear weapons.
"Seems legit..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges*
Stupid Law Making Assaulting Journalists A Federal Crime Revived By Congress
This Stupid Law (and others like it that seek to carve out special exemptions/classes of persons) is nothing but tripe that will only serve to further divide the nation.
How is a great nation conquered? By dividing it's people amongst themselves.
Either there is equal protection under the Law for all persons or there is not.
*The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. ~ Gaius Cornelius Tacitus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges*
Aptly put.
Overlexification is the first symptom that a civilization has reached and passed its heyday.
Stratification by law is the second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]