SPJ has learned that Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) may propose a detrimental amendment to S. 448 — more commonly referred to as the federal shield bill — in the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. The amendment would limit who is protected by the bill to a “salaried employee” or “independent contractor” of a news organization. This language would likely exclude from coverage many online journalists, freelancers without contracts, and students or volunteer journalists, among others. The amendment would also exclude people who publish anonymously or pseudonymously.
SPJ is adamantly opposed to this amendment. This morning, President Kevin Smith is on Capitol Hill to express the Society’s strong opposition. We encourage you to contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as early as possible this morning to tell them that you do not support an amendment that limits who is protected by the bill. The Committee is slated to vote on this bill at 10 a.m. Eastern (for a live webcast of the meeting, click here). Please be sure they hear from you before that time.
The following is a list of Senate Judiciary Committee members (Click on names for contact information):
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ranking Member
Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Edward Kaufman (D-Del.)
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman
Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)
Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)
For your convenience, we have provided a letter that includes key information regarding the amendment. Please feel free to use this when you contact the senators:
Dear Senator [INSERT LAST NAME]
I’m writing to express opposition to a proposed amendment to S. 448 – the Free Flow of Information Act – that would limit the definition of “covered person” to a salaried employee or independent contractor of a news agency. As a journalist and member of the Society of Professional Journalists, and as someone who cares deeply about freedom of the press, I am concerned that this newly proposed language would limit the impact and scope of the potential law and erroneously exclude freelance journalists not already contracted to a news agency.
Journalists of all types, including those not salaried or under contract, play an essential role in the gathering and dissemination of news and information. The proposed amendment would only cover salaried employees or independent contractors working for an entity that “publishes a newspaper, book, magazine or other periodical.” By this narrow definition of a covered person, many journalists would be excluded, including:
-Online journalists working for Web-only publications such as Slate or Salon.
-Student journalists and volunteer journalists working for community news organizations.
-Freelance journalists who have not secured a contract with a news outlet but who are otherwise doing legitimate reporting and research in preparation to secure a contract.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would exclude anonymous journalists and those who publish under a pseudonym. While the linchpin of journalism is to be open, honest and ethical, there are certain instances that necessitate not revealing the name of a reporter or author. For example, many foreign correspondents working for U.S. media outlets might use a pseudonym when reporting from countries with particularly harsh views toward press freedoms. Journalists who publish in this way, though not the norm for most in the industry, do so to avoid violence and harm as a result of their reporting. This type of reporting is absolutely critical, as it often exposes government corruption, human rights violations and other issues that might otherwise go unreported.
For further evidence of the importance and necessity of anonymously sharing news and information, look no further than the beginnings of this great country. Many of the founding fathers – from Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Franklin to John and Samuel Adams – published and shared information in this way. They did this to avoid scrutiny from a government that sought to stifle their ability to inform citizens. I’d hate to see what would have happened to the development of the United States had they not done so.
Sincerely,
[INSERT NAME]
To learn more about SPJ’s efforts, click here. Read shield law press releases sent earlier this year on SPJ News.
Thank you for your immediate action to support this pivotal legislation.

