Like zombies, bad legislative proposals just keep coming back to life. Two years ago I wrote the column, “The state has no business defining ‘news media.'” The idea of the bill at hand was to grant journalists special access to public records that other citizens lack.

You’ll never guess what Senator Cathy Kipp and numerous other legislators want to do this year. Yep: Grant journalists special access to public records that other citizens lack. It was a stupid and unjust proposal then, and it is a stupid and unjust proposal now. Government should not treat journalists as more equal than others.

This year’s effort, Senate Bill 77, does some other things that don’t concern me here. Ben Markus summarized the part I’m talking about: “Governments in Colorado would have longer to fulfill citizen requests for public records. . . . News media would get preferential treatment, which caused one lawmaker to vote against the measure.” Kudos to Senator Byron Pelton, the only “no” vote in committee, for recognizing the principle of equal treatment under the law. Twenty-seven senators voted to send the measure to the House.

True, under the bill, journalists are only a little more equal than others, not radically so. Looking at the February 26 version, the bill extends records responses for you second-class citizens (I’m claiming the “journalist” title) from three to five days, and in extenuating circumstances from seven to ten days.

But, the bill continues, “notwithstanding the periods set forth” for you rubes, “a ‘reasonable time’ to respond to a request made by a mass medium . . . or a newsperson . . . is presumed to be three working days or less,” or seven in extenuating circumstances.

So, by getting a two-day advantage, journalists are only 40% more equal than others, according to the 27 senators who voted for the measure. But, look, the principle matters. Government should not be defining what constitutes journalism, and certainly it should not give preferential treatment to the people politicians regard as journalists. That’s wrong, and it’s an affront to the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Records fee advantage

Existing statutes (27-72-205(6)(a)) say government “shall not impose a charge for the first hour of time expended in connection with the research and retrieval of public records.” Senate Bill 77 says government “may treat a request for public records made within fourteen calendar days of another request for information pertaining to facially similar content made by the same person as one request and not as multiple individual requests,” except this bit does not apply to journalists.

In other words, if you as a second-class citizen make the exact same requests a journalist makes in these circumstances, government may charge you more than it charges the journalist. And who gets to decide which requests are “facially similar” to others? Why, the very same government agents directed to discriminate against non-journalists.

This should be a slam-dunk federal case for the first non-journalist who jumps in to point out that Senate Bill 77 obviously violates the equal protection clause. That any legislator would sponsor or vote for this odorous, anti-constitutional legislation is shameful.

Defining journalism

To define “mass medium” and “newsperson,” Senate Bill 77 relies on state statute 13-90-119, pertaining to “Courts and Court Procedures.” The point of this statute is to clarify that journalists may not be forced to reveal their sources (with some exceptions). That’s a legitimate concern. Similarly, 13-90-107 protects attorney-client privilege and the sanctity of the confessional.

But to use the definitions of 13-90-119 to grant special privileges to journalists in accessing government records is completely illegitimate.

Regardless, Senator Kipp seems not even to have read the statutes that she seeks to amend. She told Markus that she wanted to “make sure that we were giving access to people who are legitimate members of the media, and not just somebody who’s got a blog somewhere.” For a legislator to try to officially define what constitutes a “legitimate” journalist is repulsive.

But blogs are not even ruled out by the definitions in question:

“‘Mass medium’ means any publisher of a newspaper or periodical; wire service; radio or television station or network; news or feature syndicate; or cable television system.” Blogs typically are periodicals.

“‘News information’ means any knowledge, observation, notes, documents, photographs, films, recordings, videotapes, audiotapes, and reports, and the contents and sources thereof, obtained by a newsperson while engaged as such, regardless of whether such items have been provided to or obtained by such newsperson in confidence.”

“‘Newsperson’ means any member of the mass media and any employee or independent contractor of a member of the mass media who is engaged to gather, receive, observe, process, prepare, write, or edit news information for dissemination to the public through the mass media.”

As the annotations indicate, the courts already have liberally interpreted what defines a “newsperson” in this context by ruling the Anti-Defamation League is included.

However, even these liberal definitions go too far in defining what constitutes a journalist. These statutes should instead be revised to include anyone in any context in which the person acts as a gatherer of news with an intent to publish.

Legislators must swear to “support the constitution of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states, “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Senate Bill 77 plainly violates this fundamental provision. Any legislator who votes for this bill thereby violates their oath of office. And any Colorado journalist who fails to say as much does not deserve the title.

Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.