The feral government has a right to defend itself against that kind of nonsense.
</sarcasm>
And... stop. What part of CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC escapes these goons?
Freedom of the press is ever MORE critical in a constitutional republic. Democracy is mob rule, which is how they're operating these days.
No they don’t. A reporter or journalist is a citizen like the rest of us. If the constitution spelled out who is and is not a reporter, with a list of responsibilities, then maybe. The constitution only says in the first amendment that there will be freedom of the press, but does not define who that is.
There is no mandate for a reporter to watch government and there is no right for the people to know, and no special privileges for reporters. Like the rest of us, if they know details of a crime they must divulge the information. If I knew details of a felony and refused to cooperate I’d be charged as an acessory.
The interesting thing is that Colorado has a shield law, but the judge wants to know who violated his gag order.
How can we judge this story without a picture?
Journalists like to pretend that there is something sacred about what they do, sometimes in a vain attempt to elevate their profession to that of a lawyer or medical doctor. The truth of the matter is that they are nothing of the sort.
I've never heard a compelling argument for why a "journalist" deserves some special legal protection for something that could potentially expose your average citizen to criminal prosecution.
They had an interesting landmark case here in New Jersey in recent months. The judge in this case decided that a local housewife who posted a lot of material on the internet as part of a crusade to root out corruption in county government was protected by the state's "shield law." I thought it was a great decision. If some @sshole with a press credential from the New York Times or CNN is protected under a "shield law," then I should be protected, too.
I worked as a reporter and editor for over a decade. The only laws reporters need is one to hold them personally legally accountable for false reporting.
Trust me.
To hell with journalists and their shield law.
They only print the liberal side of things anyway, let them hunt it down the best they know how.
How important was a shield law when they went looking into Obama’s background..
Thaaaaats right folks, they didn’t, the hell with them.
have no interest in “journals” having special privileges. They are citizens, if they are called to be a witness in a court case, no different than you or I. If they want to claim 5th amendment, same as you or I. If they elect to not cooperate- same.
Reporters?
There aren’t more than a small handfull left in the entire country who would qualify.
But we have more than enough former reporters who have moved on to become Obama Water Carriers, Obama Butt Lickers and Obama Apologists.
But what if the reporter is a big fat liar? Or “made up” the confidential source?
But, we know all reporters are honest as a new rose in Springtime..../s
No.
Given how vital is the freedom of the press in a democracy
Stopped reading right there. These people need to go back to school and learn what type of government we have.
What they need is a fairness law...if they are going to lie cheat to get democrats elected then they don’t need or deserve any protection!!!
Journalism is, was, and will be politics. Which was OK, until journalism became a single entity - until, that is, the major newspapers became associated. Read, until they became members of the Associated Press. Adam Smith predicted the result:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)After a century and a half and more of continual virtual “meeting” among its membership, the Associated Press is little elsebut" a conspiracy against the public." A conspiracy, that is, to inflate the reputations of journalists by slandering everyone else upon whom the people do and must depend.
The fact that journalists don’t have to associate with a particular political party does not prevent a political party from associating with journalism - which is what Democrats do, and why Democrats get such positive labeling and such affirmative PR, and why their opponents get such negative labeling and PR.Journalists do not consider themselves mere citizens; they call themselves “members of the Fourth Estate” - the other three “Estates” being priestly or mobility based. Such being the case, my enthusiasm for the granting of special protections for journalists is, shall we say, limited.
Reporters need to go and apply to the state they will be practicing in for the right to play reporter.
Why should they be able to report “news”without it being certified by the government that it is based on fact.
Also future reporters will be required to pay the state a fee to register each Computer they utilize for word processing and News collation purposes.
Whats good for the 2nd Amendment is just as good as the first./Sarcasm everyone
How do we define journalist?
I wonder if Jana Winter’s law enforcement source is at the Phoenix field office of the FBI? She’s involved in a case related to that office. And another proponent of a media shield law a/k/a licence to lie that would allow the government the power to define who is and who is not a privileged reporter is, or rather was, Senator John McCain.