Unless it can be construed as a tax...
Posted on 09/12/2013 1:15:00 PM PDT by ColdOne
The vote was 13-5 for a compromise defining a "covered journalist" as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.
It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist," who would be granted the privileges of the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
jour·nal·ist
[jur-nl-ist]
noun
1.
a person who practices the occupation or profession of journalism.
2.
a person who keeps a journal, diary, or other record of daily events.
Origin:
1685–95; journal + -ist
Unless it can be construed as a tax...
So, how does this all connect with the “Juden” and the Cross patches the government is probably printing up?
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., complained that the definition of a journalist was too broad. Pushing back, Feinstein said the intent was to set up a test to determine a bona fide journalist.
Nice thing we have people there to tell us exactly Who and what comprises a profession....
You know because the populace is so damned dumb we need edumakated peoples to tells us what ends are ups...
Bumblehumper will be ecstatic now that the government is finally going after “bloggers”...
*Unconstitutional.
Unless it can be construed as a tax... *
Perhaps Conservatives will be counted as 3/5 of a journalist by the Left.
Well the 3/5 measure was made to prevent he south from taking over the house so i would imagine that the libs would want to use it to get rid of the conservatives media citizen journalist...
Constitution...LIBs/DIMs/RINOs don’t need no steeenkin’ Constitution!
“I think journalism has a certain tradecraft. It’s a profession. I recognize that everyone can think they’re a journalist,” Feinstein said.
So they are basically putting in “union-esque” protections for the establishment media...
They apparently don’t need no steenkin’ dictionaries, either.........words mean what they say they mean, Winston............1984.......
The 1st amendment does not give the New York Times the right to exist in perpetuity; it gives the People the right of a free press.
-PJ
Oh my, Putin is running the senate, too?
Extremely.
So the only recognized journalists will be the main stream media, who are the worst true journalists.
There already exists a mechanism by which a journalist can assert a constitutional privilege. It is called the 5th Amendment, the right to not incriminate yourself.
The important element of the 5th Amendment is that it is *not* up to a judge, or jury, or prosecutor, police, intelligence agency, bureaucrat, etc., to determine what *you* as a citizen consider to be “incriminating evidence.”
It amounts to “I’m not going to testify because I don’t want to.” And they can offer immunity from prosecution all they want and you can still refuse, and you don’t have to say why.
Right now they are trying to muddy up the *traditional* privileged communications, of which there were three: physician-patient, which was a Common Law practice that has effectively ended with the HIPA Act (HIPAA); clergy privilege, which is Common Law, accepted as part of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion, and by statute, and the courts hate and want to end; and between spouses, which they also want to end, or at least subvert.
Journalists and informants are not part of this. So when the courts have extended “reporter’s privilege”, it should not be confused with traditional privilege.
“Reporter’s privilege is a qualified (limited) First Amendment right many jurisdictions by statutory law or judicial decision have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.”
That is, they have no constitutional protection, just what the courts have created for them, out of whole cloth (like the “right of privacy” the courts created in Roe v. Wade).
Therefore, by trying to “clarify” reporter’s privilege, what the senate is essentially trying to do is *remove* the strong 5th Amendment protections, substituting weak, statutory protections *based* on the 1st Amendment, and *exclude* all but “government approved” reporters and journalists from having protection.
In other words, it’s a fraud to strip rights from citizens.
Step two is to pass “common sense journalist control,” and require background checks before one is issued a Journalist Permit.
I'm not sure that definition would cover bloggers? What do you think?
I’m with Uncle Miltie.
I want my Pajamadeen Press Pass.
“This is not America. A revolution happened.”
The “Revolution” has been going on for 40 years. We were just too busy working, and raising families, while being told by the TV and movies that anyone who thought it was happening was “NUTZ!”, and an extremist.
What is it about shall make no law that they do not get?
Do we have a First Amendment anymore?
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.