Media organizations in the U.K. are warning that a clause hidden in the deregulation bill will significantly alter journalists’ ability to protect their sources and negatively impact freedom of speech rights throughout the country.
Under the bill, which also includes changes to the regulation of knitting yarns, liquor sales to children, and more, the British government would be able to seize journalists’ notebooks, photographs, videos and digital files without allowing any journalist to be present in court or object.
Though none of the other underlying rules are changing regarding how police can obtain a journalist’s material, media organizations say that if they are not able to present their concerns to a judge, it will make it easier for law enforcement and government officials to convince a judge that the information is necessary for their case.
Journalists argue that changing some of the journalistic protections established 30 years ago under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, could severely impede on the media’s ability to do its job, since if any media organization doesn’t comply, it could be charged with contempt of court.
Many British journalists and media organizations, such as the Newspaper Society, stressed that this law is troubling since whistleblowers will be less likely to come forward if journalists are not able to guarantee that their identity and information can be protected, and may lead to the erosion of other journalistic protective measures in the future.
“The deregulation bill’s provisions could enable the current statutory safeguards to be removed completely, reduced, weakened or otherwise radically altered at any later time, without prior consultation of the media affected nor detailed parliamentary scrutiny of the effect,” the Newspaper Society said.
“Reporters are put at risk, whether reporting riots or investigating wrongdoing, if perceived to be ready sources of information for the police.”
The Guardian’s chief lawyer Gill Phillips agreed and wrote that the proposed changes, especially the use of ‘closed material procedures,’ are concerning since they violate “a fundamental common law principle of open justice.”
However, many members of Parliament continue to defend the changes made to PACE under the deregulation bill and said the bill was designed to “remove unnecessary bureaucracy.”
“Every measure in the deregulation bill is intended to remove unnecessary bureaucracy,” a Cabinet Office spokesman said. “Clause 47 would bring the Police and Criminal Evidence Act into line with other legislation in this area and would allow the criminal procedure rules committee to make procedure rules that are consistent and fair.
“However, the government has noted the concerns raised about this issue, and Oliver Letwin is happy to meet with media organizations about this before the bill goes to committee.”
Glimmer of hope
The bill has not become law yet and was only discussed for the second time on Monday, which local news reports say means the bill still has a long journey ahead of it — having to pass through the House of Commons and then the House of Lords.
Not all members of Parliament agree that all facets of the deregulation bill are a good idea. Some say there is time for the government to eliminate some problematic clauses, such as Clause 47.
Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin said passage of the bill as is would mean that newspapers would be losing “the guarantee of their day in court.”
The Newspaper Society agreed and said the clauses guaranteed under PACE are “vital to the Act’s protection of journalistic material against inappropriate police action … they are integral to parliament’s intention to safeguard freedom of expression, facilitate public interest reporting and maintain media independence of the police.”
Letwin said the intent of Clause 47 was not to weaken the rules that protect journalists. He mentioned on Monday that the government is “now looking for ways specifically to exempt journalism and all such media items from the clause.”
Though media organizations and advocacy groups say that Letwin’s decision to reconsider the clause is a positive sign, it’s not a done deal yet, and they have encouraged print journalists, broadcasters and other media employees to share their concerns with the government.
If the bill is changed or thrown out altogether, media advocates believe it should happen within the next few days.
Worldwide trend
Although the U.K. appears to be the latest country dealing with freedom of the press-related issues, it’s far from the only one where journalists struggle to have the freedom to do their jobs.
As MintPress previously reported, China is one of the worst offenders for press freedoms in the world, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The Asian nation ranks third in the world for the most imprisoned journalists for a single country, behind Turkey and Iran.
“The foreign press is often restricted from traveling freely around the country or, in some cases, not allowed to travel at all to certain parts, like Tibet, which are deemed too ‘sensitive’ for reportage,” the MintPress report said.
While China has major faults, the U.S. isn’t perfect when it comes to protecting the rights of the press.
In September, Congress crafted a piece of legislation that determines whether a person is a journalist. It’s a bill designed to give federal protection to journalists and bloggers from being forced to disclose the identities of confidential sources. This would mean that before the government could ask a news organization or a journalist to identify sources, it must first go to a federal judge, who would supervise any subpoenas or court orders for the information.
But the legislation comes with a catch. In order for a person to be protected under the bill, one must first meet the criteria for being termed a “journalist” — and even then, journalists will not be protected in all situations.
Though freedom of speech, which includes the printed word, is protected under the First Amendment, media shield laws are supposed to go above and beyond in terms of protecting a journalist from being forced to disclose confidential information and sources.
At the urging of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the committee defined what they considered “journalism,” as well as who qualified to be labeled as a “journalist.” Feinstein said legal protection should only be extended to “real reporters” and not a “17-year-old” with his or her own website.
“I think journalism has a certain tradecraft. It’s a profession. I recognize that everyone can think they’re a journalist,” Feinstein said. “I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there.”
Opponents expressed concern that the bill did not take into consideration efforts to protect national security interests and unconstitutionally allowed the government to determine who is a journalist.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said that if the bill does become law, it “goes a long way toward ensuring that reporters will be protected from subpoenas for their confidential information and sources. … While is it not as inclusive as we would like, it is not nearly as limited in that area as previous attempts at a federal shield law have been.”
While President Barack Obama has told the Justice Department to protect journalists and has expressed support for media shield bills, The Associated Press reported last year that in 2012, the U.S. government had spied on more than 100 journalists in its organization, tapping phone lines for those who wrote stories about government and other matters.
But it’s not just under Obama’s supervision that the press has been spied on. In 2010, it was discovered the government spied on the Washington Post and the New York Times after an anonymous source shared information with the media outlets in 2004.