Dick Durbin: Are bloggers and tweeters entitled to constitutional protection?

http://michellemalkin.com ^ | May 26, 2013 05:53 PM | Doug Powers

[Sub-Driver]

Dick Durbin: Are bloggers and tweeters entitled to constitutional protection?

Share By Doug Powers • May 26, 2013 05:53 PM

**Written by Doug Powers

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin has in the past had a very subjective and abstract view of the Constitution, and on Fox News Sunday he once again wondered which people might be “entitled” to constitutional protections and which people might not:

“You’ve raised an important point and I heard Sen. Graham call for special counsel,” Durbin said. “I’m not ready to do this at this moment. I would like to know if Holder has any conflict in here beyond what we heard when it comes to the Fox case.”

“But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”

Does Dick think the First Amendment only covers journalists (and apparently only ones who write with quills on parchment)?

If Durbin ever bothered to actually read the Constitution he’d know that the Founders knew all too well the danger of having somebody like, well, Dick Durbin, ever ending up as the arbiter of who’s “entitled” to rights.

[Impala64ssa]

The same little Dick Turban who wants the fairness doctrine reinstated. Didn't he at one time remark that he SUPPOSES Rush Limbaugh has a right to freely express himself?

[sten]

strangely enough, i’m pretty sure such a committee has absolutely zer0 to do with the rights of citizens... as no members of the committee endowed us with our rights in the first place.

[kiryandil]

There are apparently some people who will only understand when they’ve been beaten till they puke blood.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

What that communist maggot thinks or wants is irrelevant. He can go to hell.

 

Dick Durbin Defends Commies and Socialists at May Day Rally (Video)

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/dick-durbin-defends-commies-anarchists-socialists-at-may-day-rally-video/

 

Plenty of "free speech" for him and his murderous tyrant lovers but not for anyone else, huh.

 

 

[abb]

It was cited in the Branzburg decision.

[savedbygrace]

LOL

[EnquiringMind]

No, Dick, but Constitutional protection is available to Islamic terrorists lurking in the US — those who are planning to blow up the bloggers and tweeters.

[halfright]

your post had me spitting OJ across 6 monitors. Thanks for the grin!

[xzins]

It's obvious that Durbin doesn't have a clue what the first amendment says.

"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."

For his benefit, I've posted it above. If one of the DOJ watchers on FR would send it to him, I'd appreciate it. I've emboldened one relevant section

[bert]

If the law can be disregarded, is Durbin protected by the law?

[WildWeasel]

Headline really should read, Durbin asks if Conservative bloggers have a constitional right to freedom.

[IbJensen]

Little Dick is an insignificant socialist dummy.

There is NOT one intelligent Democrat. They’re all as stupid and clueless as Durbin and Pelosi.

[reg45]

Dick Durbin is the poster child for term limits.

[Cheerio]

Are dumbass senators entitled to Constitutional protection?

I say make all public figures subject to the same slander and liable laws the rest of us are. We are a nation where about the only industry left is lawyering, so I say bring it on - sue all these idiots into oblivion. We don't seem to know how to get rid of the pests at the ballot box in a land of LIV.

[Cheerio]

Only properly licensed "reporters" would be protected by the Constitution.

Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS; full title, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union of the Council of Ministers of the USSR), the central news organ of the USSR. TASS collects official and other national news, international news, and photographic reports, which it disseminates to organs of the Soviet press, television and radio stations, other organizations in the Soviet Union, and subscribing organizations abroad.

[Cheerio]

IS this the same little Dickie Turban that achieved such fame for stating the following while his enemy GOP President Bush 43 was in office?

" “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners”

- Illinois Senator Dick Durbin

[Cheerio]

WE have rights. What we lack is representation.

[swampthang77]

Is Dick Durbin entitled to tarring and feathering?...

[GraceG]

Just like the 2nd, only musketts are allowed...

Which means only old timey single page typesetting presses are allowed....

Blogging aand texting, not protected just like the founders never forsaw an AR-15....

So thinks a sick liberal progressively corrupt mind.....

[Fast Moving Angel]

I can’t believe this is even a question. Oh, wait ... in this day and age, yes I can.