‘Mel Gibson Bill’ to Deter Sale of Information Passes Assembly

• AB 920 Sponsor Sharply Criticized by Celebrity Website that Obtained Actor’s Arrest File

BY ANNE SOBLE

AB 920, the bill that would make it a crime for public safety employees to be a party to so-called checkbook journalism—the sale of information, especially celebrity news, to broadcast, print and Internet media outlets—has passed the state Assembly by a vote of 74 to 0.

The measure goes to the Senate next week, where passage is also expected. The bill must be signed by the governor before it can become law, which is anticipated.

The measure, authored by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Malibu), was recently introduced at the request of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, following the brouhaha that ensued after documents on the July 2006 DUI arrest and alleged anti-Semitic rant by Malibuite Mel Gibson became public soon after the incident took place.

Documents from Gibson’s Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station arrest file appeared on a celebrity-oriented website within a few hours, fueling an international media feeding frenzy that became a news event in its own right.

Last week, that website, TMZ, attacked Brownley and the measure. A posting on the site read “Brownley seems to think TMZ may have actually bribed someone to get the critical pages of the arrest report detailing Gibson’s anti-Semitic tirade. Well, Brownley is an idiot,” and reiterated that “TMZ didn’t pay squat.”

After repeating Brownley’s statement that “Mel Gibson was one of those cases where information was given out before his due process was executed,” the site asked, “So why is Brownley wasting taxpayers’ money by pushing a bill with a totally faulty premise? Why isn’t she interested in the fact that Sheriff’s officials lied to the people they serve and manipulated evidence?”

Adding an ironic touch, the site appears to regard the measure as celebrity favoritism, further skewering the representative with, “How’s this for a theory—she represents the district in which Gibson and other celebs live. We’re guessing Brownley is banking on a big celebrity turnout at her next fundraiser.”

Brownley has not commented directly on the TMZ assault, but said this week that AB 920 “is not targeted at any specific media outlet. I have no personal knowledge as to which outlets may or may not engage in this conduct.”

As for the actor whose behavior (for which he subsequently apologized with comparable fanfare) triggered the maelstrom, Gibson spokesperson Alan Nierob told the Malibu Surfside News the longtime local resident “is not available for comment on this matter.”

The LASD has been conducting an internal investigation of how the material was leaked to TMZ. LASD Chief Roberta Abner, who now heads the division that is overseeing the investigation previously stated that its conclusion is expected shortly.

Computer files and other records belonging to the arresting officer, Deputy James Mee, were removed from his home under court order but the department has not disclosed the results of their analysis or any other aspects of the internal review. Mee is now reportedly back on assignment in the field, but not in Malibu.

Brownley has stated that she does not know whether information was sold in the Gibson case, but stressed that the LASD is concerned about the possibility that scoop-hungry media outlets are offering to pay public safety officers for information, spurring her concern that such sales could “taint the right to a fair trial.”

AB 920 targets sheriff’s deputies, police and California Highway Patrol officers, as well as law enforcement agency staff employees who sell privileged information, in addition to reporters or other media reps who offer to pay for information. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and fined up to $1000.

Brownley said, “In the age of instant information and Internet sites...the pressure to ‘break a story’ has raised concerns that some of these news websites may attempt to gain inside information on a story of a breaking event by paying a peace officer to obtain the information prior to its proper legal and timely release.”

If this takes place, she said, “This is a breach of the public trust, and, if violated, should be a crime. Adding a Penal Code section to prohibit...profiting or making any type of financial gain by providing proprietary department information...would dissuade both the peace officer and the media outlet from engaging in this activity.”

The mainstream media have remained quiet about the measure to date. Most adhere in principle to the notion that news organizations do not pay for information.

Although First Amendment concerns are raised whenever constraints on free speech rights are promoted, there have been reports of behind the scenes lobbying by some media for the measure. Mainstream media face fierce competition from alternative outlets and self-interest might favor legislation that appears to curb their no-holds-barred news edge.

Recognizing the strong judicial protections for information dissemination, the bill has no effect on the volunteer whistleblower who assists in uncovering government or corporate abuse.

Giving information out of moral outrage, or even spite, might violate an agency’s policy and be subject to disciplinary action, but it is not criminal.