Posted on 02/11/2015 4:07:01 PM PST by Lazamataz
I’m for distinguishing them from bloggers.
Because bloggers are no more “journalists” for writing blogs
than I am an engineer for building a barn. Especially if I
stole the plans somewhere.
Ok. I assume you do not wish to license journalists; you defer to ‘distinguishing them’ instead. That means, in your view, ‘bloggers’ and ‘journalists’ are free to publish whatever they wish, unfettered by license, tax, or permit.
What does it mean to ‘distinguish’ a journalist from a blogger?
Who does this ‘distinguishing’? Is it a government agency? If so, which one? What are the distinguishing credentials, if any?
Literacy testing might be a good idea.
That means, in your view, ‘bloggers’ and ‘journalists’ are free to publish whatever they wish, unfettered by license, tax, or permit.
I think blogs should have a question mark in front of their name to indicate the material is either made up or recycled.
A big scarlet question mark. They are second class citizens and not fit for polite society.
What does it mean to ‘distinguish’ a journalist from a blogger?
A journalist plys a craft for a living.
A blogger steals material and droolingly fakes it up into a new form for purposes of self aggrandizement or subterfuge.
Who does this ‘distinguishing’?
Mostly me.. which indicates that it isn't too hard to do.
What are the distinguishing credentials, if any?
"Powered by Wordpess" = a blog. Zero cost, zero liability, zero credibility.
I hope these answers have satisfied your barrage of questions, thanks for playing.
It was, indeed, a barrage of questions. If you wish to regulate free speech, expect quite a few questions.
You’ve answered enough. There are many more questions that your answers raise, but I have enough answers. Your support for the First Amendment is conditional. You would be happy with ‘levels and strata’ when it comes to the First Amendment. It is a very dangerous position to take, and you will certainly see why in short order, because America is abandoning the First Amendment.
The ‘levels and strata’ approach is the same approach taken by Second Amendment opponents: Certain people qualify for a gun, others do not. Certain guns are allowed, others are not.
This in no way affects our friendship, but I do need to know my ally’s strengths and weaknesses.
Wow.. is that what I want to do?
Here I thought I was just against plagiarism for profit.
I learn something new every day.
Let's consider that for a moment.
The amendment reads, in part:
Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
All well and good. Logical. Noble, even.
What it does NOT address is the freedom to steal.
Here is a real good example of what I'm talking about, right here in our own neighborhood.
Attend:
Just before noon yesterday, Daily Caller publishes a story about some
global warming wankers getting cold. Funny stuff. Good stuff.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/its-too-cold-to-protest-global-warming-at-yale/
A worthy blogger then steals the story outright and adds his own little
spin to it and sticks it on his free Wordpress blog. Lists himself as
the author, too. Author of the content, of the story. So we can now
add lying to the charges, as well as theft. That nobility seems to be eroding.
https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/yale/
Not content to let his deeds be limited to his own blog, our worthy & noble
blogger then trots over to Free Republic and posts the stolen material and
lies yet again, claiming to be the author of original material. Noble indeed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3257274/posts
THIS is what I oppose. That is NOT free speech, that is NOT freedom
of the press. It is theft and lying and deceit and THAT is what I oppose.
You said: "Your support for the First Amendment is conditional."
Perhaps you are right there, bud. It's conditional in that it does not
extend to theft or lies. If you wish to paint me as an enemy of the
constitution you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Keep in mind, though, that a few thousand years before the constitution
was written, some crazy old dude name Moses dragged some laws down off
a mountain that covered exactly these same things.. theft and lies.
Laz, you wrote the following: "Your support for the First Amendment is conditional. You would be happy with ‘levels and strata’ when it comes to the First Amendment. It is a very dangerous position to take, and you will certainly see why in short order, because America is abandoning the First Amendment.
First let me say that I am firmly opposed to he government in any way further regulating the internet. I am especially opposed to the attempt to treat it as a public utlilty.
In regard to the highlighted part of your comment Laz, the application of Free Speech is already and always has been conditional. (If you wish to characterize that as "levels and strata" then that's your choice of phrase.)
Conditional limitations on Free Speech have taken the form of exceptions for Libel, Slander, Incitement to Riot, Sedition, Treason (you know, Sedition and Treason - like you find in the Congressional Record and Executive Orders.)
More to Gunner's point, Plagiarism, although not considered a crime is subject to civil action under copyright infringement laws. It is also regarded as a serious ethical breech in business and academia, although if you are a long term member of the Congress currently serving as V-P then it's regarded as a resume' enhancement.
Long story short, limitations on Free Speech already exist but as a practical matter I personally oppose any further application of limitation with regard to the internet - especially when that limitation is imposed by the Federal Government.
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.