Actually, the original language of the bill, the very same language that defines a journalist under the Senate version of the bill is quite well articulated in that it defines a covered person under the act of journalism as opposed to tying it to the profession and the economics entailed within.
Josh On Oct 17, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > 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? > > I wonder what a better way to word it would be. > > Lets take Josh Wolf as an example. > how should it be worded to have included him? > > Jay > > -- > http://jaydedman.com > 917 371 6790 > Video: http://ryanishungry.com > Twitter: http://tinyurl.com/2aodyc > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
