Posted on 09/12/2013 1:15:00 PM PDT by ColdOne
I guess the Senate has nothing else to do..
See, the GOVERNMENT will grant you the privilege of free speech--if it so desires.
Got tyranny?
Bona Fide that pig! (Feinstein)
“I’m not sure that definition would cover bloggers?”
Which is the exact point...
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.
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.............
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.
What ‘privileges’ are they talking about?
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.
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").
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").
JOURNALIST: An employee of the 0bama regime who serves as a propagandist for the Marxist coup on the United States government.
Thanks.
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.
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.
*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”
‘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
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.