A South Carolina lawmaker invited nationwide condemnation Tuesday with legislation proposing a mandatory journalist registry and potential jail time for violators. But state Rep. Mike Pitts now says he intentionally duped reporters and press advocates to expose what he sees as their hypocrisy.

“I filed this legislation as an experiment to make a point about the media and how they only care about the constitution when it comes their portion of the 1st Amendment,” the Republican legislator wrote on his Facebook page Wednesday morning.

“They constantly attack people who follow their Christain [sic] beliefs and attempt to portray them as bigots, and they certainly do not like the fact that normal everyday Americans gather to petition the government and air grievances,” he wrote. “Look no further than how they have demonized the Tea Party. Furthermore, they love to trample on our 2nd Amendment rights to 'Keep and Bear Arms'. If they had their way, there would be no 2nd Amendment.”



South Carolina state Rep. Mike Pitts explained his journalist registry bill in a Wednesday Facebook post. U.S. News Screenshot

Pitts did not respond to a U.S. News interview request, but appeared to give a similar explanation to The Post and Courier on Tuesday afternoon, though less directly, saying he found the reaction from critics ironic and that he took inspiration from concealed carry gun laws. ”I don’t anticipate it going anywhere,” he told the paper.

It’s unclear if the somewhat detailed bill, which would have established a “South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry,” actually was intended as a joke, or if it now will be withdrawn.

If it became law, people working as journalists without registering would face $25 fines. Second offenses would be misdemeanors punishable by a $100 fine and 15 days in jail, and repeat offenders would face $500 fines and 30 days in jail.

Media outlets would have to conduct criminal record background checks on prospective hires and journalists would be ineligible for registry if they had “demonstrated a reckless disregard of the basic codes and canons of professional journalism associations, including a disregard of truth, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability.”



Attempts to define "journalist" generally are controversial. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in 2013 amended an ultimately unsuccessful journalist shield bill to specifically exclude WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who routinely offers reporters and the public leaked primary source documents, concerning many. Courts have not recognized a federal constitutional right for journalists to protect their sources, however, so it's unclear what would become of such a definition in that context.