Recent indictments of journalists for talking with whistleblowers (the charges are for stealing classified info, but really for talking with whistleblowers) have led to a demand by the press for a federal shield law. Since the Democrats in The Senate want to keep their public relations firms (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) happy, they have been debating a shield law in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The caveat is that the new law would define who is and who is not considered a “covered journalist.” Read: authorized journalist.

From David Codrea:

Defining “covered journalists” as those who are “an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information,” the bill would also “extend to student journalists,” the report continues, meaning it will also codify who is an “Authorized Student.”

Under that definition, most bloggers (particularly gun bloggers) don’t qualify as “covered journalists.”

Here are some problems:

1. Freedom of the press is not limited to professional journalists any more than the freedom of speech is limited to professional speakers. “The press” includes everyone from the professional reporter to the guy blogging in his or her free time.

2. If the government is allowed to say who is not a journalist, expect them to crackdown when non-authorized people discusses topics that the government doesn’t want discussed.

3. If the only protection a journalist has is a government-issued permission slip, expect the media to report only what the government wants reported, less the permission slip is withdrawn.

I don’t expect the mainstream media to fight this much. After all, they get theirs under the current definition. Plus, they can get rid of those annoying bloggers taking their readers.