And the jackwagon you rode in on.
FRegards,
TArcher
Posted on 05/26/2013 4:57:16 PM PDT by 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.
Only the legitimate press ie the main stream press (which can be counted on to be reliable) has constitutional protections. The other press (conservative) is really out of the mainstream and distorts the public discourse, it should be treated with the disdain. Of course have no protections should be provided to them since they aren’t legitimate news organizations. Didn’t our President say Fox news wasn’t a true news source compared to msnbc or current tv where you can receive accurate information vs right wing propaganda?
I think Senator Durbin is right,best the FCC decide what is a news organization that way we don’t get these IRS or Benghazi stories that cause over excitement and prevent the real news stories getting attention like disarming the citizenry or passing comprehensive immigration reform. The purpose of the news is to educate the public and guide them in the right direction if you don’t filter the news it could be too dangerous might cause to much independent thinking out there!
Thanks for posting that. 100% agreement.
......and heads on a pike.
You’ve just described the most important parts of L’il Dick Durbin’s entire constituency.
*****
“When we assumed the soldier we did not lay aside the citizen,” from then-Gen. George Washington’s June 26, 1775, letter to the Provincial Congress is inscribed inside the apse.
Ref
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/amphitheater.html
Note: The above quote was a favorite of Col David (Perfumed Princes) Hackworth USA (Ret.) (now deceased)
*****
“There ain’t no ticks like poly-ticks. Bloodsuckers all.”
-Davy Crockett (unsourced)
Ref
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett
**********
Get my drift....???
*****
If murdering a baby is a constitutional right, I’d say that blogging and tweeting are too. Just my humble opinion.
WE have rights. What we lack is representation.
"...and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. ""I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"--The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
Oh yes, let’s allow the Federal government to decide WHO is a journalist...that’ll work well.
Damn, Dick Turban...you’ve got 99.95% of the media already...
If “journalists” get shield laws, then we all do. There is no Constitutional role for a “journalist”, they are citizens like the rest of us and subject to the same laws.
The Constitution enumerates certain “jobs” in the Federal government and describes the duties and responsibilities of those jobs, including how a citizen gets one of these positions.
If journalists were that special then how to determine who is and is not a journalist would be spelled out. Instead journalists have invented a constitutionally protected role for themselves, starting with the assumption that the people have a “right to know” and the journalists’ job is to keep government honest.
Damn, Dick Turban...you’ve got 99.95% of the media already...
Thanks for that. Wow, a Jehovah’s Witness case from the middle of the FDR era. How were you ever made aware of it?
If they extend said rights to foreign terrorists, then they are by available to any foreign journalist.
Straw man argument as it is. Why even argue with this guy? Hes an abysmal tyrannical moron.
Should Senators and Congressmen be entitled to Constitutional rights?
Are you as a US Senator or as a US citizen entitled to constitutional protection, specifically the First Amendment?
Nuff said.
So this media shield law is actually nonexistent?
The First Amendment cites both "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press".
They are different sides of the same coin. Journalists have the same rights as citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
