scholarly journals The Press, National Security, and Civil Discourse

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 419-451
Author(s):  
Jenna Johnson
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Free Flow ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Fake News ◽  
Shield Law ◽  
The Press ◽  
Reporter's Privilege ◽  
Security Concerns ◽  
Free Flow Of Information ◽  
Flow Of Information

The Constitution expressly provides protection for the freedom of the press. Yet there is one area in which the press is not so free: the freedom to refuse disclosing confidential sources when subpoenaed by the federal government. Currently, there is no federal reporter’s privilege. The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment provides no such protection, and repeated congressional attempts to codify a reporter’s privilege in a federal shield law have failed. Arguments against a shield law include national security concerns and the struggle to precisely define “journalist.” Such concerns were evident in the most recently proposed shield law, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2017. This Comment advocates in favor of passing a federal shield law. Specifically, this Comment analyzes the Free Flow of Information Act of 2017 against the backdrop of a post-9/11 America where “fake news” runs rampant. Though far from perfect, the proposed law was a step toward balancing national security concerns with press freedom. Legislators can and should strike an effective balance between these two tensions by accurately defining terms like “national security” and “properly classified” to prevent government overreach. Finally, this Comment argues that a federal shield law is necessary to combat the recent national security concerns raised by “fake news” and thereby reaffirm media credibility.

Why Trade Agreements are not Setting Information Free: The Lost History and Reinvigorated Debate over Cross-Border Data Flows, Human Rights, and National Security

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (04) ◽  
pp. 671-700 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUSAN AARONSON
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Free Flow ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Data Flows ◽  
Free Flow Of Information ◽  
Flow Of Information

AbstractHerein, we examine how the United States and the European Union use trade agreements to advance the free flow of information and to promote digital rights online. In the 1980s and 1990s, after US policymakers tried to include language governing the free flow of information in trade agreements, other nations feared a threat to their sovereignty and their ability to restrict cross-border data flows in the interest of privacy or national security.In the twenty-first century, again many states have not responded positively to US and EU efforts to facilitate the free flow of information. They worry that the US dominates both the Internet economy and Internet governance in ways that benefit its interests. After the Snowden allegations, many states adopted strategies that restricted rather than enhanced the free flow of information. Without deliberate intent, efforts to set information free through trade liberalization may be making the Internet less free.Finally, the two trade giants are not fully in agreement on Internet freedom, but neither has linked policies to promote the free flow of information with policies to advance digital rights. Moreover, they do not agree as to when restrictions on information are necessary and when they are protectionist.

scholarly journals A Shield for Whom? First Amendment Implications of a Federal Shield Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrice Holderbach
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
News Media ◽  
Kansas City ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Free Flow ◽  
Shield Law ◽  
Tiered System ◽  
Free Flow Of Information ◽  
Flow Of Information ◽  
The U.S

In May of 2007, the U.S. Congress introduced the Free Flow of Information Act, reigniting the legislative push toward a federal shield law. Though the journalism industry has widely embraced prospects for the law, such legislation would likely create a tiered system of protection among First Amendment practitioners. Back in 2005, during an undergraduate internship as a beat reporter for The Kansas City Star, I recall receiving a mass e-mail from a senior editor. The memo encouraged all employees of the paper, which is read daily by about 700,000 people, to contribute to a legal defence fund dedicated toward the creation of a federal shield law. Without probing the pros and cons of what such legislation would mean not only to the newspaper establishment, but also to society in general, the message challenged fellow employees to meet or surpass the editor’s $100 contribution. That message troubled me, and it should trouble us all. Last year, the U.S. Congress considered two versions of a bill to create a federal shield law protecting journalists from being subpoenaed and potentially jailed for refusal to disclose anonymous sources. Congressmen marked the move toward reintroducing the legislation in 2007 by cajoling hundreds of delegates at the American Society of Newspaper Editors conference to 'use their pages in support of the upcoming federal shield law bill' (Strupp 2007). Indeed, such commentary has recently been published by The New York Times (2007), among numerous other outlets. And in early May of 2007, the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously introduced the Free Flow of Information Act, reigniting the legislative push toward a federal shield law. This paper avoids analysing that specific proposal, as this occasion marks not the first time Congress has considered this topic and likely not the last. Rather, the thrust examines conceptual implications derivable from a federal shield law, implications not ordinarily discussed by the news media industry. Frighteningly, such legislation would likely create a tiered system of protection among First Amendment practitioners  an urgent warning explained throughout this paper.

scholarly journals Comparison of E-Commerce Regulations in Chinese and American FTAs: Converging Approaches, Diverging Contents, and Polycentric Directions?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Huang
Keyword(s):  
Free Flow ◽  
Digital Products ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
The Us ◽  
Free Flow Of Information ◽  
Flow Of Information ◽  
Domestic Law

Insufficient WTO regulation of cross-border e-commerce confronts China and the US with three legal challenges: ambiguous classification of digital products, inadequate consumer and privacy protection, and weak protection of cross-border flow of information. China and the US have adopted converging approaches to address these challenges: inserting e-commerce chapters into their FTAs. However, the substance of these chapters is diverging. Firstly, US FTAs categorise digital products separately from goods and services and provide national treatment and most favoured nation treatment to products and their suppliers. China’s FTAs still offer no solutions to the classification of digital products and their treatment. Secondly, although China’s FTAs still provide weak protection for consumers and privacy, Chinese domestic law has converged towards US FTAs to provide better protection. Thirdly, US and China FTAs are significantly divergent in their regulation of the free flow of information. In the post-TPP era, a polycentric direction will emerge in the regulation of the free flow of information between China and the US.

E-Democracy as a Contemporary Framework for Citizens' Deliberation

2005 ◽  
pp. 250-255
Author(s):  
Ulrike Kozeluh
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Media ◽  
Virtual Space ◽  
Free Flow ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
Free Flow Of Information ◽  
Flow Of Information

The emergence of new media has raised the hope of many politicians, citizens, political activists and scholars from various disciplines to establish a (virtual) space for free flow of information and communication for increasing the quality of democratic decision making.1

The Political Culture and the Press of Canada

1983 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thelma McCormack
Keyword(s):  
Political Culture ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Third World ◽  
The Political ◽  
Class Structure ◽  
The Press ◽  
Primary Obstacle ◽  
Commission Report ◽  
Free Flow Of Information ◽  
Flow Of Information

AbstractThe 1981 Kent commission report on newspapers is discussed and contrasted with the MacBride (UNESCO) report. The former assumes that competition is the major safeguard of diversity; the latter, written from the perspective of Third World countries, regards social inequality as the primary obstacle to the free flow of information. Together they reflect contemporary controversies about modernization. Trends toward rationalization, professionalization and autonomy are examined. Neither approach, Kent or MacBride, provides a satisfactory interpretation of Quebec's francophone press. An alternative model based on access is, we suggest, closer to the realities of Canada's changing political culture and class structure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document