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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last
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]

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

Correction: They have NO authority to determine what the requirements of any profession are.
51 posted on 09/12/2013 2:45:50 PM PDT by TomGuy (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: expat2
What ‘privileges’ are they talking about?

They are basically working on a bill that would say that journalists do not have to reveal their sources (and cannot be held in contempt of court for failing to do so). The logic behind defining "journalist" for this purpose is purportedly to prevent every witness under the sun from abusing this privilege (by, for example, writing a blog about whatever they heard/witnessed, and then claiming they can't reveal their "source").

52 posted on 09/12/2013 2:46:59 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: expat2
What ‘privileges’ are they talking about?

They are basically working on a bill that would say that journalists do not have to reveal their sources (and cannot be held in contempt of court for failing to do so). The logic behind defining "journalist" for this purpose is purportedly to prevent every witness under the sun from abusing this privilege (by, for example, writing a blog about whatever they heard/witnessed, and then claiming they can't reveal their "source").

53 posted on 09/12/2013 2:47:01 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
I know!..

JOURNALIST: An employee of the 0bama regime who serves as a propagandist for the Marxist coup on the United States government.

54 posted on 09/12/2013 2:52:22 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (If Americans were as concerned for their country as Egyptians are, Obama would be ousted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Thanks.


55 posted on 09/12/2013 2:57:11 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
The logic behind defining "journalist" for this purpose is purportedly to prevent every witness under the sun from abusing this privilege (by, for example, writing a blog about whatever they heard/witnessed, and then claiming they can't reveal their "source").

So you're ok with this?

56 posted on 09/12/2013 2:57:50 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
So you're ok with this?

No. I don't think journalists should have special privileges not to testify. And, if they are granted such a privilege, I think it's unwise to attempt to define "journalist" - give judges some guidance/guidelines to help them determine whether someone asserting the privilege may do so, sure, but not a strict definition of "journalist."

My only point was that, while this is kind of stupid, it's for a limited purpose.

57 posted on 09/12/2013 3:02:14 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Funny but that word “journalist” appears not in the First Amendment.

Consider too the state of the press in the Founding Fathers’ time. Let’s just say the tag “scathing” could be applied to most articles - and many of them were written by the Founders under assumed names! I’d say it was dirt simple to make a case that the Founders intended a no-holds barred form of Freedom of the Press.


58 posted on 09/12/2013 3:20:27 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Henceforth, the Office of the President shall be known as IMPOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

*Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press.
What is it about shall make no law that they do not get? *

It also says “Some animals are more equal than others”...right next to “separation of Church and state”


59 posted on 09/12/2013 3:22:47 PM PDT by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
The government wishes to tell us which words to use, who is allowed to use them and when.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

~Lewis Carroll

60 posted on 09/12/2013 3:26:00 PM PDT by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 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