--- In [email protected], "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, long time lurker, rare poster here, > IANAL ... but I wouldn't count on this wording protecting a blogger > from the DOJ if they've got some other "day job" and nobody is paying > them to over a given story. The most recent wording is extremely odd in its specificity. It's like they don't want to leave any room for the courts to interpret what a commonly used word like "journalism" means. Obviously the changing nature of the concept is not something these legislators are keen to embrace. The emphasis on financial gain is extremely weird and pretty much unjustifiable. I can see lots of reasons why you need to discriminate between someone who works (for love, money, or bee in bonnet) as a journalist and someone who doess not. Not all bloggers qualify as journalists (citizen or otherwise) and not all need or deserve to be protected by a journalist's shield. But many do and they are being very deliberately excluded here. Are there any other fields where if you don't earn your living from something you have fewer rights? > ... but it's a very interesting turn of event in anycase. absolutely. > > On 10/17/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So legally, you aren't a journalist unless you're a commercial journalist, > > > huh? Funny, other 'professions' like medicine and the law aren't tied to > > > such mercenary considerations. > > > > im not sure i read it that way. > > i think they define it as someone who regularly reports on something, > > has a track record of reporting. > > This is basically what a blogger can be if they are dedicated to a topic. > > > > I do agree that it's trubling to read "for financial gain or livelihood". > > does this mean you must get paid by a commercial company? > > can you just get donations from the community? > > can you have a day job and blog at night? > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.DavidMeade.com >
