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
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.