[Conscience of a Conservative]

You seriously cannot be serious. You really think our government has good intentions in doing this? I truly wish I was as optimistic as you.

I've said nothing about "good intentions." All I've said is that, legally, all this bill would do is create a journalist-source privilege, and that the definition of "journalist" in the bill would apply ONLY to determining who is covered by the privilege. Just look at the language of the bill - technically, it is not defining "journalist," it is defining "covered journalist" (e.g., journalists who are COVERED by the privilege). It's not "optimism," it's reading the bill.

[Lazamataz]

" All I've said is that, legally, all this bill would do is create a journalist-source privilege, and that the definition of "journalist" in the bill would apply ONLY to determining who is covered by the privilege. Just look at the language of the bill - technically, it is not defining "journalist," it is defining "covered journalist" (e.g., journalists who are COVERED by the privilege). It's not "optimism," it's reading the bill.

I actually agree with you. Well analyzed.

However, dial it forward: What follows from this? Well, OBVIOUSLY, the pols will clamor, "We need to LICENSE journalists so they can present credentials that they are, in fact, covered.... right?"

It's a trivial jump to that, when they are stirring around in this.

Next comes more strict and strident regulations -- perhaps an oversight board? -- that grants or revokes licenses.

And the final nail is, when legislation is crafted for Felony Journalism Without a License.

It's not at all farfetched; not when you see what the left -- and the RINO right -- have already done.