of the guidelines rather than just newsgathering is concerning to me. i hope there will be further improvements. what is ordinary newsgathering in an era where some people called journalists accomplices to their sources? >> this kind of gets to a little bit about -- for me, the biggest problem with something like a shield law is that we are getting to the point where we don't really need a subpoena. i am in a class of people who surveilled, and it is hard for me to know whether or not i've already given up my sources. are the measures that one takes to guard against that -- i heard from an earlier panelist that may be using encryption does outibly -- does it take you of ordinary newsgathering if you're trying to protect her sources? are you more of a target? i don't think anyone can adequately answer that. i don't expect to ever see but i would love to see some legislation that recognizes that the techniques of surveillance are chilling to journalism and addresses that. >> you were saying before when we were talking that we are now in a realm where in o

the words right here, that it is in the interest of the justice and necessary to protect lawful newsgathering activities, you're covered. both -- most judges have been quite liberal in applying this law. friendly, we did not get too much opposition from the blogger, new media community, and they did not like this. a goodought it was compromise, given the fact we need those. if we did not have a unified front in the committee, i would not be able to give you an answer about the bill passing. panelistsevious included glenn greenwald who lives in brazil and said during the discussion that he worries about consequences might befall him if he returns to his native land, this one. would anything in your bill set his mind at ease yes, bottom line. this clearly is a national security case. it would be a judge who would have to rule that bringing glenn greenwald forward to reveal his sources would protect the future security of the united states. that is a lot better than the justice department saying you have to reveal your sources, no contents, no independent art work her -- no independent arbiter,

the doj is now indicated it will not go after reporters for such ordinary newsgathering. jiving andinary? official over classified information or stealing information, it might not be ordinary. what is the source? handing over the classified information. there is a long line of cases, most recently the case in 2001, that the supreme court said the first amendment does not permit punishment a publication of truthful information that the press has obtained lawfully about a matter of public interest. it was an illegally intercepted toetap delivered anonymously the radio station. more difficult is, what if there was not just totally passive receipt of documents or information? what if the reporter asked for information? when does it become solicitation or aiding and abetting? to thenot involve harm national security, a government interest of the highest order. it did not involve the deference to the government's assessment of that harm, such as ben was referring to. interest is also of the highest order, often involving allegations of .overnment wrongdoing the government, so

of the guidelines rather than just newsgathering is concerning to me. i hope there will be further improvements. what is ordinary newsgathering in an era where some people called journalists accomplices to their sources? >> this kind of gets to a little bit about -- for me, the biggest problem with something like a shield law is that we are getting to the point where we don't really need a subpoena. i am in a class of people who are fairly well surveilled, and it is hard for me to know whether or not i've already given up my sources. are the measures that one takes to guard against that -- i heard from an earlier panelist that may be using encryption does possibly -- does it take you out of ordinary newsgathering if you're trying to protect her sources? are you more of a target? i don't think anyone can adequately answer that. i don't expect to ever see but i would love to see some legislation that recognizes that the techniques of surveillance are chilling to journalism and addresses that. >> you were saying before when we were talking that we are now

they had a strong language about the importance of protecting the newsgathering function from interferencey the government and they imposed upon the justice department a qualified privilege it wasn't absolute but it was pretty good. fast forward to the obama administration and the key events over last year we found about in the early spring that the justice department notwithstanding the guidelines subpoenaed a massive number of the press and in the investigation about the story where the cia and the government had foiled an effort to do a bombing with the anniversary of bin laden. they were very upset and investigated in without getting a notice o they subpoenaed the phone records and there was an up art shouldn't have happened under the guidelines. they said a notice will be given unless it is going to have a harm to the investigation. this was a public investigation that didn't make any sense and then very shortly thereafter it was disclosed almost a year and a half or two years after the justice department secretly obtained the e-mail communications that's been you mentioned again. the

the words right here, that it is in the interest of the justice and necessary to protect lawful newsgathering activities, you're covered. both -- most judges have been quite liberal in applying this law. friendly, we did not get too much opposition from the blogger, new media community, and they did not like this. they thought it was a good compromise, given the fact we need those. if we did not have a unified front in the committee, i would not be able to give you an answer about the bill passing. >> that previous panelists included glenn greenwald who lives in brazil and said during the discussion that he worries about consequences might befall him if he returns to his native land, this one. would anything in your bill set his mind at ease yes, bottom line? this clearly is a national security case. it would be a judge who would have to rule that bringing glenn greenwald forward to reveal his sources would protect the future security of the united states. that is a lot better than the justice department saying you have to reveal your sources, no contents, no independent arbiter, etc. if the

resources of both of those organizations combined would amount to probably a small fraction of the newsgathering capabilities that you find at say a place like nbc. without making any specific judgments or criticism about the christian broadcasting network or fox i will simply say whatever they are doing that is good is inadequate for the news of the day. yes, sir. >> dave russell service direction or for campus outreach these radical voices being highlighted despite the couple families being more of a baptist than the ku klux klan is a christian ministry they are always making the news. can you talk more about why their voices are highlighted so much? >> i think it's a combination of ideology and practicality. the ideology is simply that i don't think most folks in the mainstream media have the theological training and tools and temperament and background to be able to tell the difference between fred phelps and westboro baptist church in rick warren at saddleback church. i think for the most part they don't get the difference. they don't understand what the differences are for the most part. t

not brought up in this particular press conference, but you know, as far as the landscapele of newsgatheringwhat we've heard yesterday, as far as federal prosecutors, we understand that they may look into whether this case could basically get to the point of being a hate crime. we also heard though from police who believe that it is a hate crime. so, prosecutors will be following golden gate through the process of understanding all the evidence and we presume will make that official announcement if they deem it appropriate. what we do know though today from this press conference is that these prosecutors will file these two charges. again, the charge of premeditated murder for the death of theresa la man know and then capital murder charge for the death of -- the grandfather and grandson, r represent it underwood and william corporan, both killed here at the community center. >> wait to see if other charges are imminent. thank you so much for that report from kansas. >>> short break here. ahead at this hour, an ominous turn in ukraine, ukrainian military is on the move. could be headed for a

resources of both of those organizations combined would amount to probably a small fraction of the newsgathering capabilities that you find at say a place like nbc. without making any specific judgments or criticism about the christian broadcasting network or fox i will simply say whatever they are doing that is good is inadequate for the news of the day. yes, sir. >> dave russell service direction or for campus outreach these radical voices being highlighted despite the couple families being more of a baptist than the ku klux klan is a christian ministry they are always making the news. can you talk more about why their voices are highlighted so much? >> i think it's a combination of ideology and practicality. the ideology is simply that i don't think most folks in the mainstream media have the theological training and tools and temperament and background to be able to tell the difference between fred phelps and westboro baptist church in rick warren at saddleback church. i think for the most part they don't get the difference. they don't understand what the differences are for the most part. t