“Real” News Media to Be Defined by Law

A Semi-News/Semi-Satire from AzConservative ^ | 5 December 2009 | John Semmens

[himno hero]

totally ridiculous.

its market forces, needs and requirements of independants operating that created and operated the “system”. Now Government wants control? Sounds more like a propaganda machine at work again.

[Zman]

This would fail the 1st Amendment test in front of a strict constructionist Supreme Court; of course, so would hate crime legislation.....

[gimme1ibertee]

Smells like the Fairness Doctrine to me....Either way, it stinks.

[freedumb2003]

The nanniest of all nanny-staters show their contempt for the free citizens of the USA.

Why do we need them to define for us what is and isn’t news? It is only the first step to government takeover of the media.

[ntmxx]

Where does one begin with the concept of un-Constitutional on its face; oh, that’s right, since when did that matter for those that exempt themselves for the law.

[TribalPrincess2U]

I’m so tired of these dictators telling us who can fart and who can’t.

SONSABEOTCHES!

[bmwcyle]

That is a bridge to far.

[Semper911]

A Semi-News/Semi-Satire from AzConservative

So which part is the news and which is the satire?

[VicVega]

Baghdad Bob comes to the Senate. Control the media. Control what information or disinformation we will get from the government.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao would be so proud of our government.

No doubt the government will be bailing out the media and press once they all get behind this Bill and get it passed into law.

The problem with the Bill is who gets to define legitimate news agency?

Hard to find a real one amongst the big agency’s and print establishment.

[VicVega]

Add, whats sad is even though this is satire, it’s never that far from the truth and the direction we are heading.

Our freedoms are disappearing everyday.

[Lancey Howard]

So which part is the news and which is the satire?

Isn't it head-shakingly disturbing when you can't tell the difference?

Good work, again!, John.

[isthisnickcool]

So which part is the news and which is the satire?

No kidding. What a worthless web site. I can only guess that they are commenting on this law?

[2harddrive]

If ABC, CBS, the New York Slimes, etc,. are REAL news, give me the fake news any time!

[2harddrive]

If ABC, CBS, the New York Slimes, etc,. are REAL news, give me the fake news any time!

[dumpthelibs]

I’m cleaning my guns this weekend. We’re going to need them soon. Take the advise of an uncle of mine who said, “buy an extra box of ammo every week”. Like I said, we’re going to need them soon.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

..strict constructionist Supreme Court...

You'll have to ask the Tooth Fairy when was the last time she saw one of those.

[Political Junkie Too]

By today's standards, Thomas Paine would be called a blogger.

-PJ

[GOPJ]

The legislation, Senate Bill 448, would define a legitimate journalist as a person working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, a recognized publisher or broadcaster of news. Those falling outside this definition would be denied the privileges granted to established news media under freedom of the press.

Not only would this shut down Hanna and O'Keefe - it might shut down FreeRepublic. Right now we can say what we want about "public figures" - it's a hard fought freedom internet journalists inherited.

If this bill passes - and we say something critical of Feinstein or Dick Durbin or any "public" figure, they could sue us - or the site - or both. The protection of being able to speak freely about those who hold themselves out to the public might be gone. Buckhead, do you know enough about first amendment law to look into this...

[preacher]

"This would fail the 1st Amendment test in front of a strict constructionist Supreme Court; of course, so would hate crime legislation..... "

This would should fail the 1st Amendment test in front of a strict constructionist reasonable Supreme Court; of course, so would hate crime legislation.....