Are you a journalist?

[Arthur McGowan]

Read the First Amendment. It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press..

The notion that a person must be a “journalist” to have freedom of speech flies in the face of the language of the amendment.

[Rurudyne]

WE THE PRESS: http://rurudyne.deviantart.com/art/WE-THE-PRESS-32066767

[TBP]

Yes, from time to time.

[Bullish]

According to the MSM you’re not a “journalist” unless you have the right friends and you toe the liberal line on everything.

[Uncle Miltie]

I’m better than THAT.

[ptsal]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. (post 30)

[ptsal]

Post 10-
Interesting citation of the CFAPA.

thanks

[rlmorel]

FR means a lot to me. It is hairy, uncivilized, often uncouth, inappropriately irreverent, all the things we see on the Internet at large.

But, for me...it is a jumping off point. I don’t watch television. I don’t read newspapers or magazines. I don’t listen to the radio. I stopped all that about 20 years ago.

But I use FR as my source of things I need to know about, and I go from there. I consider myself far better informed than people who depend on papers or the alphabet news networks. Ugh. Now, I may not know about things instantly when they happen (I often run up to six hours behind) but thanks to the interactive nature of FR, I feel that I have a better handle on specific issues. I have to cogitate on things and don’t just eat it up as the media spits it out, but...I see that as an advantage. I can think for myself.

And I like the community. I have met many Freepers in person and gone to one of the annual FR Conventions down in DC, and they are a slice of society at large who just happen to be conservatives. They have all the foibles of America, the faults, the strengths...

There are a few Freepers I just avoid, but there are only one or two of them. I even like to talk to the crazies among us, as long as they aren’t uncivil...:)

And we get all the opinions...good...and bad. It is my lifeline to staying informed. Without it...where would I go to keep up with things?

[PapaBear3625]

When the Constitution was written, I don't think we had "newspapers" and regular full-time reporters like we have today.

"Freedom of the Press" is the freedom to disseminate what you have to say to a wide audience, and does not require that the writer be a full time reporter.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The first amendment makes zero recognition of journalism. It mentions free speech, and the press. I think it simply protects the written word as well as the spoken.

There is zero justification to consider a journalist to have any protection that any other citizen does not.

Agreed, but my analysis is that “the press” was (at the time of ratification of the First Amendment, the only) technological means of promoting ideas. Already in place at the time of the composition of the First Amendment was

Article 1 Section 8.:

The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .

It logically follows that the First Amendment suggests that we have a right to unregulated printing of our opinion, but also to unregulated internet posting of our opinion. (Note: we have a right equal to that of JimRob to post our own opinion on our own web site - here on FR the opinions posted are there at JimRob’s discretion and sufferance.) This analysis is buttressed by

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

A defining characteristic of the press, IMHO, is that running a press costs money. You can’t run a press without buying ink and paper, at a minimum. In reality you also need to pay for transportation of the output of your press. You can stand up on a soap box for free - but running a press costs money. I see “freedom . . . of the press” as being essentially an amplification of “freedom of speech.” This analysis, if agreed to by SCOTUS, would leave no room for “Campaign Finance Reform.” . . . and precious little for the FCC or the FEC.

[TheTimeOfMan]

Heh. What I meant by that was that I have as much right to the title as anyone else in media.

[AFreeBird]

Okay. And you’re probably better at it too.