Don’t Plug the Citizen Leak: Let Democracy Flow

Search form

Don’t Plug the Citizen Leak: Let Democracy Flow

Don’t Plug the Citizen Leak: Let Democracy Flow
Wed, 6/26/2013 - by J. Andrés Araiza

New details are emerging on a daily basis about President Obama’s vast domestic spying network. Agents spy on journalists. Government computers track our phone calls. Drones watch us from the sky.

In response to these revelations, our corporately owned “watchdogs of democracy” are barking in protest. Mainstream journalists demand special protections against government intrusion. Big Media is colluding with U.S. Senators to craft legislation that protects less than 1% of the populace and further ensures Obama’s ability to “plug” citizen leaks.

Within the editorial pages of mainstream newspapers, columnists are voicing their opposition. The same day The Guardian in London revealed that the NSA was scooping up the phone records of millions of Americans, The San Gabriel Valley Tribune ran an editorial calling the spying “an outrageous assault on our civil liberties.” After the Associated Press announced that the Department of Justice seized reporters’ phone records, the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel wrote, “Government can't be trusted to always tell the truth or to always do what's right.”

Also within these columns, writers are proposing a well-worn solution: passage of a federal media shield law that protects “professional” journalists. The St. Cloud Times in Central Minnesota wrote that a shield law “would give greater protections to journalists asked to reveal confidential sources or hand over unpublished information to federal authorities.” California’s Modesto Bee described a law that “would require law enforcement to try every other avenue to obtain (confidential information from reporters) before seeking judicial approval to seize records from journalists. Reporters could appeal to federal judges, who would have to balance the government's need for information against the public interest in newsgathering.”

What these columns are advocating for is The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced the legislation in May after learning that the Department of Justice covertly obtained AP reporters’ emails and phone records. The law is modeled after Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) 2009 proposal, and would shield journalists from revealing their confidential sources in most circumstances. But both the Feinstein-Durbin law and Schumer’s current bill suffer the same two flaws because they fail to address: Who is a journalist? And what is legitimate news?

Granted, coming up with a universal definition of “journalist” is no easy task. Scholars, practitioners and politicians haven't yet agreed on a contemporary definition of the word. Before the widespread use of the Internet, a journalist was typically recognized as an individual who compiled information to be presented as news through a medium (newspaper, television or radio). But in the era of citizen journalism, everyone fits the definition. With an Internet connection and small digital device, anyone can compile information and publish it through a medium.

One question that comes to mind: Would Schumer’s law protect someone like Wikileaks founder Julian Assange? Assange published leaked information from Army Private Bradley Manning that revealed American war crimes abroad. Manning is currently being tried and faces life in prison for leaking the information to Assange.

But a press release from Schumer’s office states explicitly: “WikiLeaks doesn’t quality for protection … [because] the site does not fit the bill’s definition of a journalist, which requires that the covered party regularly engage in legitimate newsgathering activities.” According to the press release, senators are also working with media conglomerates to craft “new language that will explicitly exclude organizations like WikiLeaks, whose sole or primary purpose is to publish unauthorized disclosures of documents…”

This law should invoke fear. It only protects Big Media. Citizen journalists are still exposed to government persecution and prosecution. The bill, in the end, empowers the government to define who is a journalist and to silence “illegitimate newsgathering.”

America should not waste time debating laws that benefit the 1%. Big Media have not been the “watchdogs” they sell themselves as.They were silent as George W. Bush dragged us into two wars with fictitious intelligence. They largely ignored and continue to ignore climate change. Mainstream reporters were complacent as Obama hunted down Assange for publishing proof that the U.S. violated international law.

The debate around shield laws quickly falls into a rabbit hole over “who” is covered. So instead of focusing on the individual, let’s focus on the action. I propose a national Protecting Democracy Through Information Act. The idea is simple: whoever exposes government lies and crimes is protected from prosecution.

I can already hear the naysayers. Sure, the idea may not be perfect. But some of this country’s landmark legislation started with simple, grand ideals (women must have the right to vote, discrimination is intolerable, all citizens should access the polls). Let’s do the same in the current spying debate and agree: Obama’s spying was only revealed through leaks from everyday citizens who possessed earth-shattering proof. Without those leaks, we would remain blind to the covert tactics that are imperiling the U.S. Constitution and our privacy.

It isn't the 1% that requires more protection. It's journalists and the rest of us: the 99%. This country needs laws encouraging the free flow of information to foster a healthy democracy.

Article Tabs

St. Louis County police have spent $173,000 since August on teargas, grenades and "less lethal" ammunition in fears of an escalation of protests if officer Darren Wilson is not criminally indicted.

The basic idea behind the Our Children's Trust lawsuits is that the government must protect the atmosphere as it would other natural and cultural resources.

ALEC-drafted legislation aims to circumvent local ordinances on environmental protection and animal rights.

“There are many of us here who are homeless because when we came back from fighting, we couldn’t get a job, we had mental problems and there was no assistance for us anywhere."

Klein's starting point is valuable for the pro-planet movement, showing the walls that are built by the system – and ourselves – to stop climate action.

Wealthy people are often so isolated from the rest of us, many of them have forgotten how rich they really are.

Posted 6 days 1 hour ago

The coalition was set to deliver more than 200,000 signatures to the White House, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice, calling for transparency and justice in police killings.

Posted 6 days 1 hour ago

Americans greatly underestimate the degree of inequality in our country – and if we were given proper media coverage of the endless takeaway of wealth by the super rich, we'd be taking it personally.

Posted 6 days 1 hour ago

Two political philosophers, Sheldon Wolin and John Ralson Saul, call for mass movements willing to carry out repeated acts of civil disobedience to disrupt and delegitimize corporate power.

Posted 6 days 1 hour ago

The cohesion between pop culture and politics in the 1960s made it easier to access politically charged art and music – something our generation is still searching for today.

Posted 3 days 1 hour ago

Heavy industry spending resembles the last-minute infusions of cash for TV ads, mailings, and staff that helped narrowly defeat campaigns for mandatory GMO labeling in California and Washington.

ALEC-drafted legislation aims to circumvent local ordinances on environmental protection and animal rights.

Americans greatly underestimate the degree of inequality in our country – and if we were given proper media coverage of the endless takeaway of wealth by the super rich, we'd be taking it personally.

It’s a fairly absurd situation and I’d like to document exactly what happened.

The coalition was set to deliver more than 200,000 signatures to the White House, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice, calling for transparency and justice in police killings.

Sign Up