4 ms·

Am I missing something? There's no [federal] shield law protecting journalists in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States https:

Am I missing something? There's no [federal] shield law protecting journalists in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_Stat... "There is no federal shield law and state shield laws vary in scope." https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-laws https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-law... "There is no federal shield law" Not even former or sitting presidents are protected.

comte7092 3y ago
Did you read the article?
- LegitShady 3y ago
  What if the article is wrong?
  - comte7092 3y ago
    That’s an interesting hypothetical. Wrong about what exactly? The thing is the article didn’t say anything about shield laws, which is what the comment I was responding to was talking about.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      The fundamental premise. >The search warrant, signed by Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, appears to violate federal law that provides protections against searching and seizing materials from journalists. The law requires law enforcement to subpoena materials instead. This isn't true. It is legal to search and seize journalists, if the journalist are suspected of committing a crime. Either the author doesn't know the law, or is being misleading, because the same article also says the local and state cops are investigating the local journalist.
      - wtallis 3y ago
        > because the same article also says the local and state cops are investigating the local journalist. The statement from the state police is a lot more vague than that: > “At the request of the Marion Police Department, on Tuesday, Aug. 8, we began an investigation into allegations of criminal wrongdoing in Marion, Kansas. The investigation is ongoing” And even the warrant only uses passive language indicating that crimes have been committed without identifying a suspect: > Having evidence under oath before me from which I find there is probable cause to believe that an offense against the laws of the State of Kansas, including but not limited to violations of K.S.A. 21-6107 - Identity theft and K.S.A. 21-5839 - Unlawful acts concerning computers, has been committed but the warrant does at least identify that it is believed computers at the paper were "involved in the identity theft". However, no person at the paper has yet been named as suspected of committing a crime.
    - LegitShady 3y ago
      the article offers a legal opinion that isn't a fact, just an opinion. Even between lawyers there will be differences of opinion on legal cases. Journalists and their opinions don't even enter the game here. This isn't a case study, or an example from a textbook, its an ongoing situation. Conclusively saying that the raid was illegal isn't a fact, its just an opinion, and not even a credited one - it reads like the journalist's opinion. So its one thing to report on a police raid, its another thing to offer a legal opinion and present it as fact without conditionals, or whose opinion it is. What if they're wrong?
asdfsdlaij 3y ago
There are also state laws in the USA. This was in Kansas. https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/kansas/#:~:text=The%20Kansas%20shield%20law%20protects,K.S.A https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/kansas/#:~:text=Th....
- backendanon 3y ago
  "The Kansas Constitution does not have an express shield provision, nor has it been construed in a manner providing such protection."
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be law.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has been applied to the States by the Federal Courts via the Incorporation Doctrine (i.e., via the Fourteenth Amendment).
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Linked in the original the article: > The search warrant, signed by Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, appears to violate federal law* that provides protections against searching and seizing materials from journalists. The law requires law enforcement to subpoena materials instead. Viar didn’t respond to a request to comment for this story or explain why she would authorize a potentially illegal raid. * https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa
- tedunangst 3y ago
  Does that law apply to non-federal employees?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    How else would you read "a government officer or employee"?
    - Zandikar 3y ago
      Well, there's federal, state/territory, county/parish, city/district/municipal ... Not all government is federal government.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Federal law binds all of these, unless either stated otherwise or as forbidden by the Constitution.
        Zandikar 3y ago
        In theory, yes. In practice, no. Just look at marijuana and abortion laws for two different prime examples of how supposed federal law superseding "lower" law can play out in ways that circumvent the nature of that power structure. The reality is law is reactionary. Just because a law exists doesn't mean there is actually anything tangible preventing you from performing an action, and if the courts are acting in ways counter to federal law AND/OR federal law isn't asserting/executing authority that it has to supercede local law, then it's implicitly allowing it to continue and perhaps even setting precedent or groundwork to dismantle that particular paradigm. Remember, this is America. States Rights advocates aren't just numerous, but hold significant power in state and federal legislature and courts. While the Federal law should reign supreme, the reality on the ground is that even when it does, it's often playing catch up, so there's still a gulf between how things work in theory, and in reality, if for nothing else just due to the slow operation of federal government and law.
vorpalhex 3y ago
I believe you are correct. The article cites 42 USC 2000aa but that doesn't apply in cases of criminal investigation tied to those articles if my non-lawyer understanding is correct, since it's only necessary that the things seized are tied to a crime (whether they are tied to a real crime or just being awkward for someone in power is of course it's own fight in court).
- wtallis 3y ago
  The materials seized from journalists need to be tied to a crime committed by the journalists rather than a third party, and the crime cannot merely be one of having or receiving the materials/information: > may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (followed by exceptions for national defense and child pornography) It seems unlikely that the police presented evidence the journalists were perpetrating identity theft, or evidence that the journalists obtained their information through computer hacking rather than receiving it from their confidential source. If the suspect for those crimes was the confidential source rather than the journalists, then the journalists and their work products would be protected by this law.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Yeah I don't get it, the First Amendment doesn't set up journalists as some special class of citizen; all citizens are meant to have the rights and protections journalists have.
- batch12 3y ago
  Good point. Besides, what's a journalist anyway? There are many independent creators that label themselves as journalists. If that's the case, how many readers or followers must one have to be considered a 'journalist'? If journalists get special protection, I hereby declare myself one.
  - wtallis 3y ago
    For the purposes of the shield law at issue here: > possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; "Journalist" is merely an informal summary of what the law actually states.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      Looks like one needs to be twitter troll to qualify. Too much work...
    - batch12 3y ago
      Thanks, Yes- I want to state that my purpose is to distribute a similar form of public communication across state lines. Forgive me if I got it wrong at first, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a journalist.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      The problem is what does any of that mean? Am I a journalist right now because I'm disseminating my writings to the public using a means of interstate commerce, e.g. the Internet? I'm guessing probably not, but the law should give me all the protections and recognize all the rights that a journalist has. It shouldn't be the government's place to decide who is or isn't a journalist; everybody is a journalist and should be protected accordingly. If everybody is a journalist, then there's no ambiguity. But if the law says that some people are journalists and some people aren't, now there are two classes of citizen and it isn't even clear which is which.

comte7092 3y ago

Did you read the article?

LegitShady 3y ago
What if the article is wrong?
- comte7092 3y ago
  That’s an interesting hypothetical. Wrong about what exactly? The thing is the article didn’t say anything about shield laws, which is what the comment I was responding to was talking about.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    The fundamental premise. >The search warrant, signed by Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, appears to violate federal law that provides protections against searching and seizing materials from journalists. The law requires law enforcement to subpoena materials instead. This isn't true. It is legal to search and seize journalists, if the journalist are suspected of committing a crime. Either the author doesn't know the law, or is being misleading, because the same article also says the local and state cops are investigating the local journalist.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      > because the same article also says the local and state cops are investigating the local journalist. The statement from the state police is a lot more vague than that: > “At the request of the Marion Police Department, on Tuesday, Aug. 8, we began an investigation into allegations of criminal wrongdoing in Marion, Kansas. The investigation is ongoing” And even the warrant only uses passive language indicating that crimes have been committed without identifying a suspect: > Having evidence under oath before me from which I find there is probable cause to believe that an offense against the laws of the State of Kansas, including but not limited to violations of K.S.A. 21-6107 - Identity theft and K.S.A. 21-5839 - Unlawful acts concerning computers, has been committed but the warrant does at least identify that it is believed computers at the paper were "involved in the identity theft". However, no person at the paper has yet been named as suspected of committing a crime.
  - LegitShady 3y ago
    the article offers a legal opinion that isn't a fact, just an opinion. Even between lawyers there will be differences of opinion on legal cases. Journalists and their opinions don't even enter the game here. This isn't a case study, or an example from a textbook, its an ongoing situation. Conclusively saying that the raid was illegal isn't a fact, its just an opinion, and not even a credited one - it reads like the journalist's opinion. So its one thing to report on a police raid, its another thing to offer a legal opinion and present it as fact without conditionals, or whose opinion it is. What if they're wrong?

asdfsdlaij 3y ago

There are also state laws in the USA. This was in Kansas. https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/kansas/#:~:text=The%20Kansas%20shield%20law%20protects,K.S.A https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/kansas/#:~:text=Th....

backendanon 3y ago
"The Kansas Constitution does not have an express shield provision, nor has it been construed in a manner providing such protection."
- arcticbull 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be law.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has been applied to the States by the Federal Courts via the Incorporation Doctrine (i.e., via the Fourteenth Amendment).

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Linked in the original the article: > The search warrant, signed by Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, appears to violate federal law* that provides protections against searching and seizing materials from journalists. The law requires law enforcement to subpoena materials instead. Viar didn’t respond to a request to comment for this story or explain why she would authorize a potentially illegal raid. * https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa

tedunangst 3y ago
Does that law apply to non-federal employees?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  How else would you read "a government officer or employee"?
  - Zandikar 3y ago
    Well, there's federal, state/territory, county/parish, city/district/municipal ... Not all government is federal government.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Federal law binds all of these, unless either stated otherwise or as forbidden by the Constitution.
      - Zandikar 3y ago
        In theory, yes. In practice, no. Just look at marijuana and abortion laws for two different prime examples of how supposed federal law superseding "lower" law can play out in ways that circumvent the nature of that power structure. The reality is law is reactionary. Just because a law exists doesn't mean there is actually anything tangible preventing you from performing an action, and if the courts are acting in ways counter to federal law AND/OR federal law isn't asserting/executing authority that it has to supercede local law, then it's implicitly allowing it to continue and perhaps even setting precedent or groundwork to dismantle that particular paradigm. Remember, this is America. States Rights advocates aren't just numerous, but hold significant power in state and federal legislature and courts. While the Federal law should reign supreme, the reality on the ground is that even when it does, it's often playing catch up, so there's still a gulf between how things work in theory, and in reality, if for nothing else just due to the slow operation of federal government and law.

vorpalhex 3y ago

I believe you are correct. The article cites 42 USC 2000aa but that doesn't apply in cases of criminal investigation tied to those articles if my non-lawyer understanding is correct, since it's only necessary that the things seized are tied to a crime (whether they are tied to a real crime or just being awkward for someone in power is of course it's own fight in court).

wtallis 3y ago
The materials seized from journalists need to be tied to a crime committed by the journalists rather than a third party, and the crime cannot merely be one of having or receiving the materials/information: > may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (followed by exceptions for national defense and child pornography) It seems unlikely that the police presented evidence the journalists were perpetrating identity theft, or evidence that the journalists obtained their information through computer hacking rather than receiving it from their confidential source. If the suspect for those crimes was the confidential source rather than the journalists, then the journalists and their work products would be protected by this law.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Yeah I don't get it, the First Amendment doesn't set up journalists as some special class of citizen; all citizens are meant to have the rights and protections journalists have.

batch12 3y ago
Good point. Besides, what's a journalist anyway? There are many independent creators that label themselves as journalists. If that's the case, how many readers or followers must one have to be considered a 'journalist'? If journalists get special protection, I hereby declare myself one.
- wtallis 3y ago
  For the purposes of the shield law at issue here: > possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; "Journalist" is merely an informal summary of what the law actually states.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Looks like one needs to be twitter troll to qualify. Too much work...
  - batch12 3y ago
    Thanks, Yes- I want to state that my purpose is to distribute a similar form of public communication across state lines. Forgive me if I got it wrong at first, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a journalist.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    The problem is what does any of that mean? Am I a journalist right now because I'm disseminating my writings to the public using a means of interstate commerce, e.g. the Internet? I'm guessing probably not, but the law should give me all the protections and recognize all the rights that a journalist has. It shouldn't be the government's place to decide who is or isn't a journalist; everybody is a journalist and should be protected accordingly. If everybody is a journalist, then there's no ambiguity. But if the law says that some people are journalists and some people aren't, now there are two classes of citizen and it isn't even clear which is which.