Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Panel OKs Measure Defining a Journalist
breitbart.com ^ | 9/12/13 | ap

Posted on 09/12/2013 1:15:00 PM PDT by ColdOne

The vote was 13-5 for a compromise defining a "covered journalist" as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist," who would be granted the privileges of the law.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; 5thamendment; 666; bloggers; censorship; definition; freepress; journalist; license; senate; shieldlaw; specialrights; unbconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next last

1 posted on 09/12/2013 1:15:00 PM PDT by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Absurd.
2 posted on 09/12/2013 1:16:06 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks ("Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

This is not America. A revolution happened.


3 posted on 09/12/2013 1:16:31 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

no - absolutely no justification for special privileges.


4 posted on 09/12/2013 1:16:45 PM PDT by rigelkentaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Sir,

Will you please deputize every poster on Free Republic as an “Agent” so that we qualify as “Journalists” according to the Feds?

Thank you very much.


5 posted on 09/12/2013 1:16:57 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Why haven't we heard from the 30 Benghazi survivors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Unconstitutional.


6 posted on 09/12/2013 1:18:09 PM PDT by Red Badger (It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong. .....Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
This is a blatant attempt to curry favor with the media by making them a protected class.

It's bull****.

7 posted on 09/12/2013 1:18:28 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist," who would be granted the privileges of the law.

This clause guarantees that thia law will be turned against ordinary people in a matter of weeks. Just like "hate crime" laws.

8 posted on 09/12/2013 1:20:02 PM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Free speech is free speech. This is an attempt to further suppress that. The voracious appetite the federal government has for controlling everything again rears its ugly head.


9 posted on 09/12/2013 1:20:09 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne; Travis McGee

THIS IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS OUTLAWING ALL BUT STATE-SUPPORTED OPINION.


10 posted on 09/12/2013 1:20:37 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Unconstitutional.

Unless it can be construed as a tax...


11 posted on 09/12/2013 1:21:42 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

This means that a “covered journalist” with solid evidence of government corruption or murder does not have to say anything.

Plus it will be used to silence any online dissent since only certain people will have the right to freedom of the press.


12 posted on 09/12/2013 1:22:38 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Just this side of licensure. Will they license speakers and assemblers and redressers next?


13 posted on 09/12/2013 1:22:46 PM PDT by jimfree (In November 2016 my 13 y/o granddaughter will have more quality exec experience than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Just drives it under the table...dumb


14 posted on 09/12/2013 1:23:03 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

I am an agent of FreeRepublic, have posted virtually every day since June 23, 2001.


15 posted on 09/12/2013 1:24:41 PM PDT by null and void (I'm betting on an Obama Trifecta: A Nobel Peace Prize, an Impeachment, AND a War Crimes Trial...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne; a fool in paradise

Internet (or, indirectly, its inventor Albert) made them do it!


16 posted on 09/12/2013 1:25:26 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., complained that the definition of a journalist was too broad. Pushing back, Feinstein said the intent was to set up a test to determine a bona fide journalist.

It's right there in the constitution:
The government shall make no law infringing on the (bona fide) press ,(as determined by the government). /sarc.

17 posted on 09/12/2013 1:25:51 PM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

You’d think they’d be focused on their Constitutional duties, like getting a budget passed? Naw. How many years has it been?


18 posted on 09/12/2013 1:26:48 PM PDT by Dogbert41 (Up yours NSA Obama ass lickers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a “covered journalist,” who would be granted the privileges of the law.

Since when is our system a system of “Napoleonic Law”


19 posted on 09/12/2013 1:27:12 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

*Unconstitutional.

Unless it can be construed as a tax... *

Perhaps Conservatives will be counted as 3/5 of a journalist by the Left.


20 posted on 09/12/2013 1:27:40 PM PDT by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

jour·nal·ist
[jur-nl-ist]
noun
1.
a person who practices the occupation or profession of journalism.
2.
a person who keeps a journal, diary, or other record of daily events.
Origin:
1685–95; journal + -ist


21 posted on 09/12/2013 1:28:03 PM PDT by Red Badger (It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong. .....Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Unconstitutional.

Unless it can be construed as a tax...


22 posted on 09/12/2013 1:28:39 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
*A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a “covered journalist,” who would be granted the privileges of the law.
This clause guarantees that this law will be turned against ordinary people in a matter of weeks. Just like “hate crime” laws. *

So, how does this all connect with the “Juden” and the Cross patches the government is probably printing up?

23 posted on 09/12/2013 1:29:14 PM PDT by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., complained that the definition of a journalist was too broad. Pushing back, Feinstein said the intent was to set up a test to determine a bona fide journalist.

Nice thing we have people there to tell us exactly Who and what comprises a profession....

You know because the populace is so damned dumb we need edumakated peoples to tells us what ends are ups...


24 posted on 09/12/2013 1:30:32 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Bumblehumper will be ecstatic now that the government is finally going after “bloggers”...


25 posted on 09/12/2013 1:31:18 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PATRIOT1876

*Unconstitutional.

Unless it can be construed as a tax... *

Perhaps Conservatives will be counted as 3/5 of a journalist by the Left.

Well the 3/5 measure was made to prevent he south from taking over the house so i would imagine that the libs would want to use it to get rid of the conservatives media citizen journalist...


26 posted on 09/12/2013 1:32:55 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Constitution...LIBs/DIMs/RINOs don’t need no steeenkin’ Constitution!


27 posted on 09/12/2013 1:35:25 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

“I think journalism has a certain tradecraft. It’s a profession. I recognize that everyone can think they’re a journalist,” Feinstein said.

So they are basically putting in “union-esque” protections for the establishment media...


28 posted on 09/12/2013 1:36:53 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hal ogen

They apparently don’t need no steenkin’ dictionaries, either.........words mean what they say they mean, Winston............1984.......


29 posted on 09/12/2013 1:37:46 PM PDT by Red Badger (It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong. .....Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
This is clearly Congress passing a law that abridges the right of the people to a free press. Congress has no authority to decide who is press, or what makes up the press.

The 1st amendment does not give the New York Times the right to exist in perpetuity; it gives the People the right of a free press.

-PJ

30 posted on 09/12/2013 1:38:18 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Oh my, Putin is running the senate, too?


31 posted on 09/12/2013 1:45:50 PM PDT by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Unconstitutional.

Extremely.

32 posted on 09/12/2013 1:48:41 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
So they are basically putting in “union-esque” protections for the establishment media...

So the only recognized journalists will be the main stream media, who are the worst true journalists.

33 posted on 09/12/2013 1:51:01 PM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

There already exists a mechanism by which a journalist can assert a constitutional privilege. It is called the 5th Amendment, the right to not incriminate yourself.

The important element of the 5th Amendment is that it is *not* up to a judge, or jury, or prosecutor, police, intelligence agency, bureaucrat, etc., to determine what *you* as a citizen consider to be “incriminating evidence.”

It amounts to “I’m not going to testify because I don’t want to.” And they can offer immunity from prosecution all they want and you can still refuse, and you don’t have to say why.

Right now they are trying to muddy up the *traditional* privileged communications, of which there were three: physician-patient, which was a Common Law practice that has effectively ended with the HIPA Act (HIPAA); clergy privilege, which is Common Law, accepted as part of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion, and by statute, and the courts hate and want to end; and between spouses, which they also want to end, or at least subvert.

Journalists and informants are not part of this. So when the courts have extended “reporter’s privilege”, it should not be confused with traditional privilege.

“Reporter’s privilege is a qualified (limited) First Amendment right many jurisdictions by statutory law or judicial decision have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.”

That is, they have no constitutional protection, just what the courts have created for them, out of whole cloth (like the “right of privacy” the courts created in Roe v. Wade).

Therefore, by trying to “clarify” reporter’s privilege, what the senate is essentially trying to do is *remove* the strong 5th Amendment protections, substituting weak, statutory protections *based* on the 1st Amendment, and *exclude* all but “government approved” reporters and journalists from having protection.

In other words, it’s a fraud to strip rights from citizens.


34 posted on 09/12/2013 1:51:12 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (The best War on Terror News is at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Step two is to pass “common sense journalist control,” and require background checks before one is issued a Journalist Permit.


35 posted on 09/12/2013 1:52:29 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

I'm not sure that definition would cover bloggers? What do you think?

36 posted on 09/12/2013 1:54:30 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie; Jim Robinson

I’m with Uncle Miltie.

I want my Pajamadeen Press Pass.


37 posted on 09/12/2013 1:55:39 PM PDT by Old Sarge (Opinions are like orgasms: only mine count, and I couldn't care less if you have one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

“This is not America. A revolution happened.”

The “Revolution” has been going on for 40 years. We were just too busy working, and raising families, while being told by the TV and movies that anyone who thought it was happening was “NUTZ!”, and an extremist.


38 posted on 09/12/2013 1:57:16 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press.

What is it about shall make no law that they do not get?

39 posted on 09/12/2013 2:02:00 PM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Do we have a First Amendment anymore?

40 posted on 09/12/2013 2:06:08 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

I guess the Senate has nothing else to do..


41 posted on 09/12/2013 2:07:10 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist," who would be granted the privileges of the law.

See, the GOVERNMENT will grant you the privilege of free speech--if it so desires.

Got tyranny?

42 posted on 09/12/2013 2:07:11 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
Feinstein needs to read the first amendment again. Congress can make NO law.

Bona Fide that pig! (Feinstein)

43 posted on 09/12/2013 2:20:11 PM PDT by KittenClaws ( You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“I’m not sure that definition would cover bloggers?”

Which is the exact point...


44 posted on 09/12/2013 2:20:23 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Looks like all those bloggers and nontraditional media types are causing the kakistocrats angst. So they’re going to legislate qualifications for those who would be considered “competent” to bask in the kakistocrats brilliance.


45 posted on 09/12/2013 2:23:44 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Power disintegrates when people withdraw their obedience and support)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Napoleonic Law doesn't mean walking around in a hat like Napoleon's in a straight jacket like a 1950’s cartoon, but that's what today's politicians resemble.
46 posted on 09/12/2013 2:25:00 PM PDT by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

Aww, that was just a bunch of old, dead, white, European slave holders that made that junk up, so we can ignore it. We have a ‘Living’ Constitution’ now.............


47 posted on 09/12/2013 2:27:45 PM PDT by Red Badger (It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong. .....Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

That is BS.

They have authority to determine what the requirements of any profession are.

This is an early step in trying to tap down that little part of The Constitution about free press. If they can define what press is, they can control what press is.


48 posted on 09/12/2013 2:41:03 PM PDT by TomGuy (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

What ‘privileges’ are they talking about?


49 posted on 09/12/2013 2:41:22 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
This is clearly Congress passing a law that abridges the right of the people to a free press. Congress has no authority to decide who is press, or what makes up the press.

They are not deciding "who is press, or what makes up the press" for all purposes. They are attempting to define "journalist" for the purpose of carving out a journalist-source privilege.

50 posted on 09/12/2013 2:43:44 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson