Over at Slate, Jacob Weisberg asks, “Who is a journalist?”

[M]edia outfits including the Times insist on the need for a federal “shield law” that would create a privilege for journalists akin to privileges for lawyers, doctors, and priests.

A majority of states have such media protection ordinances on the books. But there’s a big problem with journalist shield laws, which advocates have yet to answer. How do you decide who is a journalist? If you create a privilege that applies to a group, someone has to decide who belongs and who doesn’t. [...] Journalism does not require any specific training, or institutional certification, or organizational membership, or even regular employment. It’s just an activity some people engage in that is protected under the Constitution.

The question of who gets to call themselves a journalist and who doesn’t is an important one, especially in light of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law. McCain/Feingold carved out wide exemptions for establishment media. If you write your opinions in a newspaper, if you give your opinions as a guest on Hardball, or if you can find Hollywood distribution for a film that contains your opinions, you are exempt from McCain/Feingold.

And while the Internet is also currently unregulated, the Federal Election Commission is now examining whether that should change. If it does, web-based commentators like me could have our free speech rights curtailed whenever election season rolls around. Suddenly, where an opinion is expressed would determine whether or not it is subject to restrictions. Michael Moore can put out his sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11, and he’ll enjoy unfettered free speech rights. However, if I create a similarly political film in the future—and if I can’t secure Hollywood distribution and can only make it available online—I might be breaking the law simply by expressing my opinion.

That’s why I’ve signed the Online Coalition petition to preserve free speech rights on the Internet. The goal is to get the FEC to continue the current hands-off policy towards the Internet. But the real problem is McCain/Feingold. Shame on Congress for passing it, shame on President Bush for signing it, and shame on the Supreme Court upholding it. All three branches of government have conspired to take a huge chunk out of the First Amendment. Muffling the cacophony of free speech might make things more palatable to the governing class, but for those of us who like to think we’ve got the right to express our opinions, it is a disastrous turn down a dangerous road.