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.
Durbin is such an idiot, he makes no pretense of having ever read the US Constitution. I wish he would just go away.
The Citizens United case allows major contributors to dwarf individuals in the political process. No organization should be influencing elections. That should left completely to individuals with no anonymity.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that foreign corporations have more right to political speech than American citizens.
Guess not.
Now it is "major contributors". Is that wealthy individuals? Corporations or groups like NRA comprised of a collection of individuals? Why shouldn't they be able to support candidates who share their interests?
Those individuals should be able just like any other individual. Where do you draw the line on foreign interests influencing the elections? If a corporation is fully owned by non citizens? Why should any organization that isn’t fully owned by American citizens have a say in our politics? Politics should be reserved to citizens and only individuals can be a citizen. Do you really want the Chinese buying our candidates?
Exactly where does the 1A restrict freedom of speech and of the press to 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.