[nathanbedford]

Feinstein's bill is contrary to the essence of the First Amendment. The idea of the First Amendment is to permit media of whatever technology to uncover and make known the activities of government. To suggest that a new technology is not part of the press protected by the First Amendment is Luddite thinking. Logic would compel Feinstein to say that the telegraph could not have been protected, nor radio nor television. The point is not the technology but the freedom to spread the word whether the word is pressed on a page of paper with little inked-over objects by Benjamin Franklin or sent through the ether in digital form by Drudge.

To argue that Drudge somehow was not a proper journalist is to send the entire impeachment of Bill Clinton down the memory hole.

Diane Feinstein is not even proceeding in orderly fashion. First she assaults the Second Amendment and then she goes back to attack the first.

[stayathomemom]

The point is not the technology but the freedom to spread the word whether the word is pressed on a page of paper with little inked-over objects by Benjamin Franklin or sent through the ether in digital form by Drudge.

I agree! I don't see the word "journalist" in the Constitution, just as I don't see the word "musket".

[Standing Wolf]

Diane Feinstein is not even proceeding in orderly fashion. First she assaults the Second Amendment and then she goes back to attack the first.

Sorry, nathanbedford, but as happens once in a great while, I've got to disagree with you.

As far as Marxists are concerned, any assault against the old constitutional America is a good and worthy assault, and the greater the number of seemingly unrelated assaults, the better.

Oh, by the way, the First Amendment doesn't apply to journalists, but all of us. How hard is that to figure out?

[RobbyS]

In the earliest days of the Republic, anyone who would afford a printing press was a journalist.