Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Georgia Republicans Push for State 'Journalism Ethics Board'

posted by martyb on Friday April 05 2019, @10:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the first-we-need-an-ethics-board-for-politicians dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Georgia Republicans Push for State 'Journalism Ethics Board':

Six Republican state representatives in Georgia have moved to create an "ethics board" for journalists that would require news organizations to provide copies of pictures and audio and video recordings of interviews to subjects who request them or risk civil penalty.

The cost of meeting those requests would be paid by the news organizations.

The proposed legislation, House Bill 734, titled the "Ethics in Journalism Act," was sponsored Tuesday by Rep. Andy Welch, who represents the city of McDonough.

The bill would create a board of media professionals and academics that would produce"a canon of ethics" and "develop a voluntary accreditation process in journalism ethics," which would also allow for the investigation and sanctioning of journalists.

This bill isn't really about local news publishers (although they would be censored too) this is about censoring CNN which is headquartered in Atlanta.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Georgia Republicans Push for State 'Journalism Ethics Board' | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 143 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:16AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:16AM (#825249)

    That's only over the phone. There is no such requirement in person. The closest thing is that publishers typically get a release to cover their ass in case a clip gets used in a commercial (rather than just in a straight news story for which there is ample 1st amdt protection). But a private citizen will never need such a thing to make their own recording that they post on youtube or twitter.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:55PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:55PM (#825366)

    False, at least in WA (unless you are press, then you have carte blanche). https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 [wa.gov]

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:

    ...[deals with recordings of communication devices over wire, radio, or other means -- prohibited]...

    (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

    ...[911 call exception, threat exception, harassing call exception, hostage situation exception]...
    ...[consent of all parties makes recording OK]...

    (4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:15PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:15PM (#825394)

      Read more carefully, those are all over the telephone or equivalent. Its all about wiretapping. None of that applies in person.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:22PM (#825397)

        Wrong. Here is the omitted paragraph dealing with "wiretapping" followed by the one about private conversation:

        (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
        (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

        If paragraph (b) was about wiretapping, paragraph (a) is redundant, and it is a basic foundation of statutory construction that legislatures do not engage in useless acts such as redundancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation [wikipedia.org] See: Rule against surplusage

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @10:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @10:45PM (#825530)

      Some of those exceptions are funny, how the hell do you know someone's going to threaten you or that it's a harrasing phone call beforehand, so you can set up your recording device?