Congress Makes a Law Abridging Freedom of Discourse

self

[aristeides]

I once attempted to attend a lecture at the National Press Club in Washington. They wouldn't let me in, because I couldn't show them any press credentials.

[swarthyguy]

Well, OK, but even tho' he had been an author etc, prior to the case, at the time he was not affiliated with any organization and so it went.

And there is nothing sacrosanct about that 60 day limit currently in force.

I can see this being used by politically motivated DA's.

A shame that this assault on Free Speech is being condoned by so many.

Better yet, repeal all campaign finance laws and let loose some real donnybrooks.

I certainly did not expect a Republican president to sign this.

[swarthyguy]

And your point brings up the threat of a revocation of credentials.

How do freelancers get into the Press Club? Perhaps they don't.

[RightWhale]

The President does many things for expediency. The election process has turned into a spamfest. If anything the campaign season should be limited, not political commentary. Have the primaries 3 months before the general election. It would then be pointless to have so many campaigns going on a year beforehand.

[swarthyguy]

There won't be any shortage of guests from various groups clamoring to get on talkshows etc.

Who's going to file a challenge against this law. Or is the SC's word the last.

Have to go.

[RightWhale]

is the SC's word the last.

Unless Congress passes yet another bill.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Re: Journalists

Journalists are loyal to the world socialisists above America.

That is the biggest problem.

[ForGod'sSake]

Through the miracles of modern PR science, we are perilously close to a government of journalism.

In their minds, Ted Kennedy joined them.

These two statements are indicative of much of what's at play here. "If it plays good in Peoria" is the litmus test for the liberal pol in the current environment. It hasn't been lost on you I see. Good piece of writing cIc.

I'd really like to comment more on this but an early season cold makes my head hurt when I try to think.

FGS

[cynwoody]

Who's going to file a challenge against this law. Or is the SC's word the last.

Alas, the Supreme Court is where challenges end up. That means holding your nose next November and voting for Bush in the hope that he will appoint another Scalia or two, and then the Constitution can be restored, if the new justices are willing to ignore stare decisis in the interest of Justice. Getting Congress to repeal it is (a) hard (because the CFR law bolsters incumbents) and (b) unsatisfying because the Constitution would remain weakened.

Of course, the other way is the 1776 way. Refresh the Tree of Liberty! Violate it and meet enforcement with force!

[swarthyguy]

Well, perhaps some intrepid TV broadcaster and some advocacy group will have the cojones to violate this law next year within the 60 day ban.

Being arrested for that may have a stimulative effect in rethinking such draconian measures; such as a perp walk for a broadcast exec or director of that group.

However, with the FCC's Damocles sword of license renewal hanging over the broadcasters, I doubt, though hope, this will happen.

[Ground0]

Again, in a Constitutional sense, we ALL are members of the FREE PRESS and don't need some flippin' "Press Credentials" to be legitimized.

The First amendment is #1 for the specific pupose of NOT having a FEDERALLY REGULATED PRESS. What we are currently faced with is nothing short of a Federally sanctioned propaganda/disinformation Agency...a la Fourth Reich.

Sad but true.