[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.

[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!

[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...

[ThunderSleeps]

...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.

Nice. Nice to see they want to finally come out and just say "we'll control your news." The liberal/socialist/fascist 'rats in power now have de-facto control over just about all the "news" in the legacy media - save FOX News (anyone want to take bets on if, or for how long, they are a considered a news agency?). So why shouldn't the fascists just come out and admit it?

Hey, you rat fascists, why don't you save some money on stationary and advertising. Don't bother calling this some catchy name, we all know this is going to end up being called "Truth" anyway. Just call it Pravda, that's all it is.

[capt. norm]

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.

We all know she never read the Constitution, otherwise she would know that Congress can not do that.

By anointing a few members of the press and denying the rest, she would be breaking the Constitution.

[Ancient Drive]

dang... these power drunk rats are getting bolder by the minute.

[ReignOfError]

At the top of the linked post: “Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News “

Something to keep in mind.

[antiRepublicrat]

Kos and HuffPo would definitely be recognized as “legitimate.”

But doesn’t this idiot realize that the “Press” meant anyone with access to a printer back then? Then it got consolidated, and they fear the modern de-consolidation.

This is so incredibly dangerous. The fastest way to circumvent a right is to redefine who it applies to.

[Stingray]

Licensing journalists is a form of "prior restraint" which is censorship. Censorship by a government agency is precisely why the First Amendment exists and - with the exception of the "clear and present danger" exception - has always been struck down by the courts. (The "clear and present danger" standard was later replaced with the weaker "compelling state interest" standard, but both have been harsh on those who would violate the First Amendment).

The licensing of journalists has always been viewed by the courts as a form of censorship, and has routinely been struck down when it has been tried.

Click here for a brief description of the difference between licensing and "accrediting" journalists.

However, I did find an article that may explain why this is happening again under the current regime.

Licensing journalists seen as a matter of "social justice" by ACORN wannabes.

The article is non too subtle: licensing the likes of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin will silence them. It reads like a liberal's "wet dream."

[rellimpank]

—you really reeled ‘em in this morning, John-—