Opposition to the ‘Mel Gibson’ News-for-Pay Bill Emerges as Senate Prepares Its Review

• First Amendment Issues Raised by Publishers Organization •

BY ANNE SOBLE

AB 920, the bill that would make checkbook journalism—the sale of information, especially celebrity news, to broadcast, print and Internet media outlets—a crime has its first major opponent, the California Newspaper Publishers association.

The measure, authored by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Malibu), unanimously passed the Assembly last month and is set to go before the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 26.

Brownley said AB 920 was introduced at the direct request of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, after documents on the July 2006 DUI arrest and alleged verbal outbursts by Malibuite Mel Gibson became public immediately after the incident.

The bill has the support of state and local law enforcement organizations, and with the exception of the celebrity website that disseminated the documents, there has been no criticism of the measure.

That changed last week with a letter to Brownley from the state’s largest newspaper organization indicating that its directors have voted to oppose AB 920.

California Newspaper Publishers Association General Counsel Thomas Newton wrote, “CNPA opposes AB 920 because it would criminalize speech that is obviously protected by the First Amendment, and, we believe, would be struck down by the first trial court faced with a prosecution under the law.” The organization requests that Assemblymember Brownley “withdraw this bill from consideration.”

Describing the measure as an effort to “gag law enforcement and court officials and officers,” Newton cites court cases related to witnesses and jurors selling their stories that courts have voided and challenge’s the bill’s premise that the judicial process requires only “proper legal and timely release” of information, dismissing this concept as “whatever that is.”

Newton says the bill’s prohibition is so broad it would create a liability anytime anything is exchanged for information, even if that information has already been made public by the media.

Brownley countered CNPA’s stance on Tuesday, stating that “the cases that CNPA cited appear to have had to do with gags on jurors that had already been excused after the conclusion of a trial, and that is a very different situation from AB 920.”

She reiterated, “My bill applies only to information that is obtained during the course of a criminal investigation, and that, therefore, could seriously compromise our judicial process. Bribing public officials for such information greatly increases the chances for such corruption.”

However, Brownley then added, “I share CNPA’s commitment to protecting our First Amendment freedoms, and would do absolutely nothing to diminish them.”

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.

The prohibitions would end 90 days after a guilty plea, conviction or dismissal. Watson contends that the bill’s time limit does not minimize the loss of the First Amendment rights.

Critics and proponents agree that anyone in the categories singled out by AB 920, what the CNPA communication dubs “the gagged class,” can legally give information to the media without liability if there is no compensation.

The bill has no effect on the traditional concept of the whistleblower who gives information out of moral outrage, to get revenge, or as the result of duplicity. Such action might violate a public agency’s internal policy and subject the individual to discipline, but it is not a crime.