Republicans In Congress Killed A Media Shield Law That Would Have Protected The AP

[Natural Citizen]

The defeated bill would have required approval from a federal court before reporters’ phone records were subpoenaed. Darrell Issa, who condemned the AP subpoena Monday, was one of only 21 House Members to vote against the bill.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/gop-congressmen-killed-a-media-shield-law-that-wou-4xje

[Anti Federalist]

Issa didn’t mention that he voted against a measure that would have protected the AP from the DOJ’s subpoena in 2007.

Told me all I needed to know.

Fake outrage.

In 2016 when the Red Team takes over for another eight years, everything that is black today will be white, the anti-war protesters will be back out in the street and tyranny will march on a right boot for a step.

[phill4paul]

Told me all I needed to know.

Fake outrage.

In 2016 when the Red Team takes over for another eight years, everything that is black today will be white, the anti-war protesters will be back out in the street and tyranny will march on a right boot for a step.


Rand will be in charge then. Don't you worry none.

[Brett85]

How exactly did the bill fail to pass if only 21 members voted against it?

[Anti Federalist]

How exactly did the bill fail to pass if only 21 members voted against it?

Failed in the Senate...


Despite Issa’s “No” vote, the bill overwhelmingly passed the House 398-21. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, another California Republican who criticized the DOJ and the President in the wake of today’s news, voted for the bill. It was defeated, however, by a Republican filibuster in the Senate the following year.

[fr33]

In 2016 when the Red Team takes over for another eight years, everything that is black today will be white, the anti-war protesters will be back out in the street and tyranny will march on a right boot for a step.

I kind of look forward to it.... but not really because the stakes are so high and people are being violated now.

I remember reading a blog of an anarchist during the election who said they hope Romney would win because we already won over all the people from the GOP that we can get and now we need to work on the democrat base... again.

[FrankRep]

How exactly did the bill fail to pass if only 21 members voted against it?

Free Flow of Information Act of 2007


House Bill (Passed)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll973.xml
- Ron Paul: Aye
- Darrell Issa: Nay

Senate Bill (Died - Failed Cloture)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035

[FrankRep]

Darrell Issa explains why he voted Against the "Free Flow of Information Act of 2007" (http://votesmart.org/public-statement/299790/free-flow-of-information-act-of-2007#.UZMNssrQ4Qg)


Free Flow of Information Act of 2007
By: Darrell Issa
Date: Oct. 16, 2007
Location: Washington, DC


FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - October 16, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act. This bill goes too far in jeopardizing our national security.

The freedom of the press is an immensely important principal in our democratic society. That is why the Department of Justice (DOJ) has for the past 35 years followed a policy that strictly limits when Federal prosecutors are allowed to issue subpoenas to the press. These standards are so difficult to meet that prosecutors, under this current policy, are commonly discouraged from even seeking a subpoena for a reporter in the first place.

These protections, which are far reaching, should not be absolute. When critical, highly sensitive national security information is illegally disclosed to members of the news media and published for every enemy of America to see--Federal prosecutors must be empowered to aggressively investigate the disclosure of that information and the prosecution of those responsible. We simply cannot erect obstacles which hamstring Federal law enforcement when sensitive government secrets are divulged. Such disclosure can be treasonous, and reporters should not be able to protect individuals who jeopardize our national security. American lives are more important than the privilege of anonymity that reporters promise to a source who is compromising our nation's secrets.

According to the DOJ, the ``unduly narrow exception to the legislation's broad prohibition on compelled disclosure would hinder efforts to investigate and prosecute those who have leaked classified information, undermine the ability of law enforcement to investigate national security breaches that have already occurred, and weaken Federal efforts to mitigate damage to national security that has already taken place.'' As a member of both the Committees on Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I find these faults with the bill unacceptable.

While I do not stand in opposition to my friends Representatives MIKE PENCE and RICK BOUCHER, the primary sponsors of this legislation, I must ask my colleagues to vote no on this bill. H.R. 2102 establishes new dangers without sufficient justification.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

[Anti Federalist]

The freedom of the press is an immensely important principal in our democratic society. That is why the Department of Justice (DOJ) has for the past 35 years followed a policy that strictly limits when Federal prosecutors are allowed to issue subpoenas to the press. These standards are so difficult to meet that prosecutors, under this current policy, are commonly discouraged from even seeking a subpoena for a reporter in the first place

LOL @ democracy.

LOL @ "freedom of the press".

LOL @ subpoena.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Fascist Tyrants (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035#summary/libraryofcongress)of regime governments (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035#summary/libraryofcongress)have always use 'National Security' in their public speeches (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035#summary/libraryofcongress) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035#summary/libraryofcongress)throughout history
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035#summary/libraryofcongress)to the serfs (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035#summary/libraryofcongress)

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act. This bill goes too far in jeopardizing our national security.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035#summary/libraryofcongress (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035#summary/libraryofcongress)
10/22/2007.
Section 2 -
Prohibits a federal entity (an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency) from compelling a covered person to testify or produce any document relating to protected information unless a court makes specified determinations by a preponderance of the evidence, including that all reasonable alternative sources have been exhausted, that the testimony or document sought is essential, and that nondisclosure would be contrary to the public interest, taking into account both the public interest in compelling disclosure and the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.

Defines "covered person" as a person engaged in journalism, including their supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate.
Excludes from the definition foreign powers and their agents and certain terrorist organizations and individuals.
Defines "protected information" as information or records a covered person obtained as part of engaging in journalism on a promise of confidentiality.
Requires the content of compelled testimony or documents to be limited and narrowly tailored.


Section 3 -
Exempts any information or item obtained as the result of the eyewitness observations of alleged criminal conduct or commitment of alleged criminal or tortious conduct by the covered person.



Section 4 -
Exempts protected information that is reasonably necessary to stop, prevent, or mitigate a specific case of death, kidnapping, or substantial bodily harm.


Section 5 -

Exempts any protected information that a federal court has found by a preponderance of the evidence would assist in preventing an act of terrorism, or other significant and articulable harm to national security that would outweigh the public interest in news gathering and maintaining a free flow of information to citizens.


Section 6 -
Applies this Act to communications service providers with regard to: (1) a communication to which a covered person is a party; (2) any document relating to such a communication; or (3) the contents of such a communication. Sets forth notice requirements. Permits a court to delay notice to a covered person upon determining that such notice would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation.


Section 7 -
Declares that this Act does not supersede, dilute, or preclude any law or court decision compelling or not compelling disclosure by a covered person or communications service provider of information identifying a source who provided information without a confidentiality promise made as part of engaging in journalism or records, other information, or contents of a communication obtained without a confidentiality promise.

[jtstellar]

so gop wolf kicking the hen-house wide open + a democrat wolf walks right in = all the gop's fault?

i don't quite get how that equation works, seems like attempt again to deflect away the blame. talk about liberal's fucking partisan low IQ points. i think we at this point have converted a good portion that ever have the IQ to be converted and possibly should be exploring option#2

[bolil]

Ummm, duh. Anyone here not convinced of the existence of a single party? We call some poop shit and other poop feces. My vitriomight not belong here, but fuck. Come the fuck on. Is this a haunted house? Are you supriZed? Seriously, Neocons in the house... I've a hard, wooden, bridge for you.

[J_White]

Told me all I needed to know.

Fake outrage.

In 2016 when the Red Team takes over for another eight years, everything that is black today will be white, the anti-war protesters will be back out in the street and tyranny will march on a right boot for a step.

yep, if the next Prez even continues then - those wars and entanglements started by Obama now - will be seen as bad and the anti-war left would be crying out loud.