Journalist Protection Act Creates New Federal Crime: Assaulting Reporters Now Carries Up to 6 Years in Prison

The “Journalist Protection Act” establishes a new federal crime specifically targeting people who assault journalists while they are on the job. This bill defines a journalist as anyone working for an outlet—like a newspaper, website, or TV station—whose main job is gathering information about events of public interest to share with the public. Essentially, if you intentionally attack someone you know is out there reporting the news, you’re now looking at potential federal charges, provided the action affects interstate commerce.

Why the Feds Are Stepping In

Up until now, an assault on a reporter was typically handled as a state crime, like any other assault. This legislation changes the game by creating Section 120 in Chapter 7 of Title 18, making this type of attack a federal offense. The core idea is to protect the free flow of information by deterring violence aimed at silencing the press. For the bill to apply, the attack must be done specifically to intimidate or stop the journalist from “newsgathering,” which covers everything from collecting information to writing, editing, or photographing it.

The Penalties: Tiers of Trouble

The severity of the federal penalty depends directly on the injury caused. If the attack results in basic “bodily injury,” the person convicted faces up to a fine and 3 years in federal prison. However, if the attack causes “serious bodily injury”—think something requiring hospitalization or causing long-term damage, using the existing federal definition—the penalty skyrockets to a fine and up to 6 years in prison. This tiered structure means that the punishment scales with the harm inflicted, putting serious weight behind the act of physically attacking a reporter.

What This Means for Everyday Reporting

For the freelance reporter covering a local community meeting or the photojournalist documenting a protest, this bill offers a new layer of protection. If someone tries to physically stop them from doing their job, the consequences are now significantly higher and federal. This is a clear signal that attacks intended to suppress the news are viewed as attacks on the public’s right to know. The only real complexity here is the requirement that the action “affect business across state or foreign lines,” which is a standard legal threshold often used to justify federal involvement, but it means federal prosecutors will need to show that connection—though in our digital, national media landscape, that link is often easy to establish.