zlacker

>>_delir+(OP)
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_Stat...

"There is no federal shield law and state shield laws vary in scope."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-law...

"There is no federal shield law"

Not even former or sitting presidents are protected.

>>backen+a5
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.

>>mcpack+o6
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.

>>batch1+nc
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.

>>wtalli+Le
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.