A California, Democratic Legislator, has introduced the "Journalist Protection Act". It would make it a federal crime to "intentionally cause bodily injury to a journalist affecting interstate or foreign commerce in the course of reporting or in a manner designed to intimidate him or her from news gathering for a media organization". Is that not the most convoluted of statements? Simple English please, how is the word affect being used here? And should a journalist be affecting interstate or foreign commerce?
First of all it is already a crime to intentionally injure another person, it doesn't need to be a federal issue. Second, can we definite "media organization" please. This is far too broad and could protect paparazzi and Playboy (we read it for the articles) along with arguably slanted mainstream news outlets. Is there no responsibility on the news gatherers to behave professionally, respectfully and honestly? I am unaware of incidents in this country of serious physical attacks on journalists. By introducing this bill, the implication is that the danger is out there. Where's the proof? This is a ploy to plant the idea that journalists are in danger.
I would say no such bill should ever be considered especially when there is absolute proof of media bias. Many esteemed organizations have cited the intense amount of negative press received by Pres. Trump, far more than any recent predecessors. People see it and are fed up. So, the idea of introducing protective measures is both unwarranted and undeserved.
