Posted on 05/29/2013 4:46:10 AM PDT by LD Jackson
Every once in a while, someone comes along and makes a statement that registers 10 on the Richter Scale of ignorance. Such is he case with Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois. He was having a discussion about a possible media shield law with Chris Wallace on Fox News. Wallace asked him a simple question, wanting to know if he was comfortable with President Obama asking Eric Holder to investigate Eric Holder's own actions. This is what Dick Durbin had to say while avoiding the question that he was asked. Hat tip to Biz Pac Review.
“But here is the bottom line – the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013?We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection. We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”
I am not here to suggest there is a conspiracy afoot to deprive us of our First Amendment rights, but the fact is, that kind of thinking is in the public arena for all to see. The fact that Dick Durbin feels comfortable making that statement on national television is troubling enough and it begs another question. What is being discussed behind closed doors that would limit what bloggers like myself write and say on the Internet? I'll be the first to say that bloggers need to be responsible about what they write. There has been many times when I found a rumor that I could have expounded on, but I held back until more of the facts were known. Just because I am not a professional journalist doesn't mean I don't have standards. Such is the case with most of the other bloggers I am acquainted with. We strive to be credible reporters of what we see and hear. Some of us are financially able to go to where the stories are. Some of us are not. That makes no difference, as we still have the right, granted to us by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, to give our opinion. We believe that so strongly, that we also believe the liberal blogsphere has the same right.
Therein lies the main difference between liberals and conservatives. Even though we disagree strongly with the liberal point of view, we agree that they have the right to state their opinions. On the other hand, many liberals would rather conservatives be shut down and limited in what they can provide to any discussion of the issues. Before you discount that theory out of hand, consider this. What else could have been behind Brett Kimberlin attacking several conservative bloggers? His methods caused more than a few financial hardships on his enemies, and yet he goes unpunished.
I believe it is important that we understand exactly what the First Amendment says. It is one of the most important statements contained in our founding documents and is not and idle fantasy.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The First Amendment mentions our freedom of speech before the freedom of the press. Before we blindly accept statements like Dick Durbin's as idle talk, we should look forward, down the path many on the left would have us trod. Is that a path we want to walk? I believe the answer to that question is no and therefore, we should resist any restrictions people like Dick Durbin would place on our First Amendment rights. If we fail and let our First Amendment rights be squashed, one word at a time, where will that leave us? I think not in a good place.
Durbin’s first amendment comment
Dick needs to be retired quickly.
Anyone else remember Durbin blubbering over the purported violations of terrorists’ “rights” when he compared our troops to Nazi and Khmer Rouge guards?
This is why the second amendment is so important. Without the second, we lose the first.
Well, the Dems are so used to the “news” media working for the DNC, they do tend to forget that the rest of us have free speech rights, too. Since there are “so many” bloggers and radio people who tend to “go Right”, Dems do not (will not) consider them the same as the “real” media, and so, not entitled to the same “rights” as those “journalists” who worship at the feet of the Dems (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, LAT, NYT, etc).
Once again, Dick Durban illustrates what a complete ignoramus he is.
There is no such thing as THE PRESS in the sense that term is used by elitist Progressives today — some sort of elite group whose members are allowed preferential treatment under law. In the Constitutional sense, “the press” is a technological device for disseminating information.
One cannot be a “member” of the press. One can only have access to a press.
Any device which enables one to state and publicize one’s views is a “press,” whether it be moveable type, offset, TV, radio, or the Internet. We all have free access to “the press,” meaning we have the right to pay any provider who wishes to sell us access to publicize our ideas.
In this regard, no CBS anchor has anymore claim to special treatment for being part of “the press” than does any blogger.
All one has to do is something that the liberals never, ever want to; refer to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. What would they have considered to be “press”? At that time, there were no established “mainstream media” organizations. Anyone (given that they had the financial means to do so) could start a newspaper. The “press”, then, to the framers was anyone who cared to publish a newspaper. There were no special qualifications, no licenses, and no college degrees necessary for one to qualify as a journalist; all you had to do was start a newspaper.
Extending that to modern technology, then, obviously internet bloggers would qualify as “press” under the First Ammendment. The basic principal is the same; no special qualifications, no licenses, and no degrees are necessary to become a journalist; one must only be willing to publish his or her writing. The only real difference between now and then is that the financial means necessary to establish oneself as a member of the press is much lower now than it was then.
Of course, even under a more restrictive definition of “press”, internet blogging certainly should fall under the realm of “free speech” and be protected anyway.
My thunder has been stolen, and much more concisely to boot. Kudos!
Indeed he does, but it'll never happen in this Godforsaken state due to the sewer that is Cook County. Those people would vote for Lucifer if he had a D after his name.
Dems have been thinking this way since the day Matt Drudge blew thru the spiking of the Lewinsky story.
Since Benjamin Franklin self-published his little work called “Poor Richard’s Almanack”, I would consider him “The First American Blogger”.
It is interesting to note, that those who wish to control “the media”, in ALL of its aspects, now mumble among themselves, as to how to approach the problem of “sanctifying” those that use and contribute, to “the media”!
I am a self-produced writer and author.
To define “self-produced”, look inside any of the ‘writer’s magazines’, and you will find advertisements as to where you may apply to acquire your Masters in Fine Arts, in order to be a more pedigreed writer. (Which in the eyes of those publishing the magazines, that you have already acquired a degree in literature!)
I have been using The King’s English, and sometimes The Queen’s, too, in my writings, since I was attending junior high school. My literary background showed enough that, as a reward during my stay as an employee of D.o.D., it was mine to write federal procedural manuals from scratch for the various contractors. From 2006 to 2012, I was a guest columnist for the regional newspaper on various issues, all on ‘payment by publication, only’, until I retired. I have done all of this WITHOUT A COLLEGE DEGREE!!
Now, let us return to those, including Mr. Durbin, who are considering the “sanctification” of those who they might call “journalists”, or “bloggers”, and which they may, in time, “allow or disallow” to hold that title.
Webster’s Collegiate Edition, Fourth Publication, states: 1./ that a “journalist” is: a person whose occupation is journalism; reporter, news editor. “Journalism” is: the work of gathering, writing, editing, and publishing or disseminating news, as through newspapersand magazines or by radio and television.
2./ As opposed to “Blog”: a journal or diary written for public viewing on a website and consisting typically of personal reflections, commentary on current events, arranged chronologically; to maintain or contribute to a blog.
Congress, I believe, will consider the “sanctification” of what a “journalist” is (although true journalists do NOT exist in either the major newshouses or broadcast televisions, anymore, they are all apparatchiks of the State), and attempt to relegate anyone that does not fit their self-defined and twisted pigeonhole to be deemed illegal, unauthentic, and therefore, to be ignored, or silenced!
I would rather silence Mr. Durbin, through the violence of the ballot box!!!
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.