Please Contribute Today!
Woo Hoo!!
Less than $4.4k to Go!
We can do this!!
Posted on 05/30/2013 6:26:43 AM PDT by marktwain
Dick Durbin isn’t sure if a federal media shield law should ensure Constitutional protection for bloggers and citizen journalists, The Daily Caller pointed out in its analysis of the Illinois senator’s appearance on Fox News Sunday.
“[T]he media shield law, which I am prepared to support … still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013?,” Durbin offered. “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 2st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”
That’s a familiar argument for those who claim the Founders only intended to protect muskets, and leaves open the door to regulate everything not written with a quill pen or printed on a hand-operated press. And one needs look no further than Durbin’s arrogant dismissal of conservative journalist William Kelly to see how he would answer his own question (not to mention how media he does recognize covered for him).
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Fort Worth Police Shoot Before Asking Questions Killing Innocent 73 Year Old Man
Jerry Waller, 73 years young, and his wife Kathy had gone to bed Monday night like they always did. Shortly after midnight, they were woken by a neighbor’s burglar alarm and bright light. Like a good neighbor, Waller grabbed his handgun and went to his garage to investigate the alarm. Waller lives across the street from the where the alarm was sounding. He was still behind his own house when the next thing he knew, two rookie police officers had opened fire on him, shooting him 6 times in the chest. Waller was instantly killed.
So, Mr. Turban, the word “people” actually means “journalists”?
Could someone do me a favor and point out where the First Amendment’s special provision for journalists lies? I can’t find it in my copy.
Ha ha. It’s an emanation from a penumbra, based first on “the people’s right to know” and oozing out from the “fact” that the press has the constitutional role of monitoring government.
So journalists can get away with actions that us regular citizens would get a felony rap for. That’s clearly in the First, isn’t it? Along with a constitutional way to determine just who is a journalist, like the constitution spells out how you can tell who a senator is.
My late grandfather, who passed away during the Carter administration, said that he didn’t understand why journalists should have any more rights than any average citizen.
I don’t either. By creating special rights for journalists, you inevitably exclude certain types of journalists.
Silly me, I thought the First Amendment applies to everyone. Where did I get such an archaic notion?
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.