Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dick Durbin: Are bloggers and tweeters entitled to constitutional protection?
http://michellemalkin.com ^ | May 26, 2013 05:53 PM | Doug Powers

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitution; democrats; dickdurbinisanass; digitalmedia; donttreadonme; electronicmedia; firstamendment; freepress; freespeech; govtabuse; hotair; liberalfascism; littledickdurbin; media; notbreakingnews; sourcetitlenoturl; turbandurbin; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last

1 posted on 05/26/2013 4:57:16 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

it is too bad that sob durbin is


2 posted on 05/26/2013 4:59:40 PM PDT by bigheadfred ( barry your mouth is writing checks your ass cant cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

>>Dick Durbin: Are bloggers and tweeters entitled to constitutional protection?

So this is how America ends? With lifetime politicians “deciding” who has Constitutional rights?


3 posted on 05/26/2013 5:00:17 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Durbin, did not being covered by the Constitution
stop Tom Paine?


4 posted on 05/26/2013 5:02:17 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Dick Durbin before he dicks you..


5 posted on 05/26/2013 5:02:56 PM PDT by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Once again, Dick Durban illustrates what a complete ignoramus he is.

There is no such thing as THE PRESS in the sense that term is used by elitist Progressives today — some sort of elite group whose members are allowed preferential treatment under law. In the Constitutional sense, “the press” is a technological device for disseminating information.

One cannot be a “member” of the press. One can only have access to a press.

Any device which enables one to state and publicize one’s views is a “press,” whether it be moveable type, offset, TV, radio, or the Internet. We all have free access to “the press,” meaning we have the right to pay any provider who wishes to sell us access.

In this regard, no CBS anchor has anymore claim to special treatment for being part of “the press” than does any blogger.


6 posted on 05/26/2013 5:03:24 PM PDT by Maceman (Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
How will a tyrannical government manifest itself? Watch TV, and listen to the 0bama regime and it's sycophants. Whether it's Fast & Furious, the IRS or Benghazi, they all act like Goebbels predicted they would.

Pick one as the catalysis, either Ft. Sumter or Arch Duke Ferdinand. Your call.

5.56mm

7 posted on 05/26/2013 5:05:20 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Are these people journalists US Citizens and entitled to constitutional protection?

Asshat!

8 posted on 05/26/2013 5:05:59 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

Very well said.

Tick Turban is an ignoramus.


9 posted on 05/26/2013 5:06:10 PM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

TRANSLATION: “Ordinary citizens are property of the big-government/big-corporate criminal complex and have no rights of any kind.”


10 posted on 05/26/2013 5:06:31 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (It is the deviants who are the bullies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

People who burn the American flag in public are “entitled to Constitutional protection.”

People who smear statues of the Virgin Mary with dung are “entitled to Constitutional protection.”

People who place the symbol of the holiest individual ever to walk among us, the founder of one of the world’s great religions, in liquid excrement are “entitled to Constitutional protection.”


11 posted on 05/26/2013 5:06:37 PM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

IL socialist thinking at its finest from Sen. Turban.


12 posted on 05/26/2013 5:08:04 PM PDT by JPG (Stay strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Bring it Dickey poo.

Oh ye eunoch of subterranean IQ.


13 posted on 05/26/2013 5:10:12 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

“People who burn the American flag in public are “entitled to Constitutional protection.”

People who smear statues of the Virgin Mary with dung are “entitled to Constitutional protection.”

People who place the symbol of the holiest individual ever to walk among us, the founder of one of the world’s great religions, in liquid excrement are “entitled to Constitutional protection.””

Unfortunately in today’s America, the people who believe its disgusting do not have any rights.


14 posted on 05/26/2013 5:11:28 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (The reason we own guns is to protect ourselves from those wanting to take our guns from us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Please Contribute Today!

Barely $200 to the yellow!!
We Can Do This!!

15 posted on 05/26/2013 5:11:31 PM PDT by RedMDer (You are Free Republic. There are no outside influences. Just us, all of us. Please donate today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Dick Turban. Get the mental picture?


16 posted on 05/26/2013 5:12:45 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The light is shining on you Durban, you cockroach. Run and hide before someone drops a foot!


17 posted on 05/26/2013 5:13:47 PM PDT by RedMDer (You are Free Republic. There are no outside influences. Just us, all of us. Please donate today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I’ve always thought that politicians shouldn’t be entitled to constitutional protections. That would go a long way towards stopping their attacks against the American people. Especially during these dark days in America.


18 posted on 05/26/2013 5:14:58 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (If you think ObamaCare is a train wreck, wait until you see the amnesty bill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Let me help you out, Dick. The “journalists” of 200 years ago were everyday citizens just like today. You don’t have to be corralled by a big time “news” media corporation to enjoy your rights to a free press. Anyone who can afford a press is a member of the free press. Same now as it was 200 years ago.


19 posted on 05/26/2013 5:15:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
If Durbin had the power to censor speech on the internet, FR would be off the net.
20 posted on 05/26/2013 5:16:56 PM PDT by Marcella (Prepping can save your life today. Going Galt is freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

a special counsel is a massive mistake.

it would only serve to sweep these issues behind the curtains until after the mid-terms -— and we have already seen that hiding things until after elections is the forte of the obamites.

let it all hang out.


21 posted on 05/26/2013 5:19:46 PM PDT by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

That question is settled law.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11598860258825518787&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

408 U.S. 665 (1972)
BRANZBURG
v.
HAYES ET AL., JUDGES.

*703 We are unwilling to embark the judiciary on a long and difficult journey to such an uncertain destination. The administration of a constitutional newsman’s privilege would present practical and conceptual difficulties of a high order. Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.

Cf. In re Grand Jury Witnesses, 322 F. Supp. 573, 574 (ND Cal. 1970). Freedom of the press is a “fundamental personal right” which “is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.” Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 450, 452 (1938). See also Mills 705*705 v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 219 (1966); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 111 (1943). The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow of information to the public, that he relies on confidential sources of information, and that these sources will be silenced if he is forced to make disclosures before a grand jury.[40]


22 posted on 05/26/2013 5:21:59 PM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

just because you’re a govt employee doesn’t mean you know jack about the Constitution

‘freedom of speech’ isn’t limited to print. I could be standing on a street corner... sending smoke signals from my backyard... or communicating via sound waves across a wire... it’s all MY speech, how I choose to express myself.

someone needs to send this idiot to remedial Constitution studies for a month


23 posted on 05/26/2013 5:22:00 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Bloggers are now an enemy of the state. They have ravaged the false flag at Newtown. (Yes I said it, when you see the first drop of blood - please lets all know. Until then it seems to be a smallish Operation Northwoods style event.)

Durbin would seem to be an enemy of the People. The lines are getting more defined.


24 posted on 05/26/2013 5:23:37 PM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred; All

Although this kind of messaging did not exist when the Constitution was ratified, I put social electronic messaging under the 1A right to peaceably assemble. Insights to the contrary welcome.


25 posted on 05/26/2013 5:24:49 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: abb

“It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets.”

Dang right....ask the Mexicans who hawk the escort services on the Las Vegas strip....


26 posted on 05/26/2013 5:26:14 PM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Are dumbass senators entitled to Constitutional protection?


27 posted on 05/26/2013 5:26:17 PM PDT by Old Yeller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Clearly, Mr. Durbin is either ignorant of the people and events surrounding America's founding period, including those who circulated ideas within the society, or he is deliberately attempting to confuse citizens in order to enslave them to an ideology foreign to the American Constitution.

Does he not understand that it is freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, the free circulation of ideas, and strict limitations on coercive powers which might be assumed by elected and appointed government officials over those precious freedoms which the First Amendment was intended to protect.

During America's founding period, the Committees of Correspondence, the broadsides, the pamphlets, the essays written over a pseudonym, the newspapers, and any other then-modern method of communicating those ideas were protected from the hand of any who, like him and his fellow "progressives," would seek to limit free speech and political discourse in America.

Technology has changed how circulation of ideas may occur; however, now, as then, human nature and the desire of some men to dominate and control the consciences and free expression of other men has not changed, and likely will not change.

In America, however, a once-wise and knowledgeable citizenry decided that it would structure its own form of self-government, placing those who governed in positions of subservience to themselves, under a written Constitution which excluded their Creator-endowed and unalienable rights from that government's purview.

Is that clear, Mr. Durbin?

28 posted on 05/26/2013 5:30:13 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Should not even have to ask that question.

YES, they are. That is what the Bill of Rights are — to protect the citizenry from over-bearing government.

Free speech is not limited to media reporters. Free speech is a right all citizens have — whether it is letters to the editor or blogs or radio commentary or talking on a sidewalk.


29 posted on 05/26/2013 5:30:53 PM PDT by TomGuy (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

After all, rights come from the government don’t they?/Sarc with a capital S.


30 posted on 05/26/2013 5:31:18 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

I also add that that free speech can be anonymous as was much of the political speech in the days of our founders.


31 posted on 05/26/2013 5:33:24 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

More backup.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5706334303740337745&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&as_vis=1

303 U.S. 444 (1938)
LOVELL
v.
CITY OF GRIFFIN.

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated.


32 posted on 05/26/2013 5:33:30 PM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Durbin and his ilk are a threat to our survival as a free republic.


33 posted on 05/26/2013 5:34:01 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell ( Obama is the problem-impeachment is the solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CMailBag

‘Dick Durbin before he dicks you..’

Durbin just proving that you have to meet a lot of Dicks before you can meet a quality politician.


34 posted on 05/26/2013 5:34:44 PM PDT by Delta Dawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Lol. Yeah, its a slippery slope. Once the elite media has 1st amendment rights, we'll have to give them to all
35 posted on 05/26/2013 5:36:12 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Apparently so.


36 posted on 05/26/2013 5:36:23 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?

In all seriousness, bloggers and tweeters are more entitled to Constitutional protection than the lying propagandists at MSNBC are, for example.

37 posted on 05/26/2013 5:36:24 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Durbin now wants to dictate to American Citizens on how they shall live, post on line and send text messages. Durbin hates it when Americans make decisions for themselves and have their own opinion.


38 posted on 05/26/2013 5:36:41 PM PDT by realcleanguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Since when did the constitution become an entitlement to a select few? Isn’t Turban one of those ___holes that flew to visit Saddam Hussein just before we invaded Iraq?


39 posted on 05/26/2013 5:38:17 PM PDT by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

well it’s not like they’re REAL journalists, like NBC or CNN, where they have to check their facts so they will always get it right /s


40 posted on 05/26/2013 5:38:37 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Bring back public hangings.


41 posted on 05/26/2013 5:39:44 PM PDT by Artcore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

You know what THEY say: DICK -DICK before DICK DICKS YOU!


42 posted on 05/26/2013 5:40:55 PM PDT by chicagolady (Mexican Elite say: EXPORT Poverty Let the American Taxpayer foot the bill !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten
sending smoke signals from my backyard

I'm reporting you to flag@whitehouse.gov and #attackwatch......the EPA needs to know what you've been up to comrade. /s

43 posted on 05/26/2013 5:41:42 PM PDT by Repeat Offender (What good are conservative principles if we don't stand by them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; All
Two faced lying troop hating bastard.

I remember when he called out troops murderers.

He's a slimy traitor.

Oh, and here are some facts:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin – an Illinois Democrat – has weighed in with outrage about the IRS scandal. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
“It is absolutely unacceptable to single out any political group — right, left or center,” Durbin said. “It goes back to the worst days of the Richard Nixon administration.”

But Sen. Durbin had different thoughts on the issue in 2010. Then Durbin singled out Crossroads GPS and other 501(c)(4)s for extra IRS scrutiny just a few weeks before the 2010 election for President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat. 

At the time Crossroads GPS was airing scathing ads against former Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. However, Crossroads GPS hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing.

Durbin wrote a letter to the IRS requesting an investigation into the status of Crossroads GPS and other organizations’ nonprofit status.

"I write to urge the Internal Revenue Service to examine the purpose and primary activities of several 501 (c)(4) organizations that appear to be in violation of the law," he said.

He says "It is absolutely unacceptable to single out any political group."

Which is EXACTLY what he did to help Obama get elected.

Last week, Durbin compared the IRS’ thug tactics to “the worst days of Richard Nixon’s administration.” But Durbin has been publicly involved in pressuring the IRS to investigate conservative groups since the targeting practice began in 2010.
And Durbin has been an anti American un-Constitutional thug for decades.

He is the GIANT pot calling the little TEA pot black.

44 posted on 05/26/2013 5:46:55 PM PDT by Syncro ("So?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Dick Turban is beneath contempt.

1st amendment free speech is for *everyone*, not just people who collect a paycheck for voicing their opinions.

When our betters can pick & choose who is entitled to "free speech" it is not free speech. It is government (Dick Turban) telling us what we are allowed to say.

45 posted on 05/26/2013 5:48:49 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“Congress shall make NO law . . .”

That must be extremely difficult for Durbin to comprehend.


46 posted on 05/26/2013 5:49:55 PM PDT by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
What I have a problem with is durbin being protected for legislation written which he votes for, in the affirmative, and then the Nation's People pay for not once but over and over and over for duplication and taxes for his obsessive compulsive disorder which creates pain and suffering for the citizenry yet durbin is afforded protection via exemption for his treachery and the People are not afforded the same protections.
47 posted on 05/26/2013 5:50:07 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If they are American citizens they are protected by the constitution no matter what form their speech or other rights take. How stupid can these fools be?


48 posted on 05/26/2013 5:50:14 PM PDT by formosa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

this administration has shown us all how they regard the law and think we should be run more like a dictatorship and yet we also have a media which though targeted by this admin they still defend this admin.

If people saw the front pages, heard the facts and understood what the hell is happening to this country then there would be massive protests and calls for Obama and his hench men to step down.

Instead the media covers for them , the sheep goes along with all this queer, radical left, agenda, the black community hasn’t got a clue and the left defends this but they also show their hypocrisy because we all know that if a republican did all of this they would be outraged.

A message to the liberals and all the homosexuals.

You think this is alright because you follow blindly your messiah but you need to ask yourself this.
If the right did this would you still remain silent and defend this?
Hell no and that is why you lot show us why the country is going to crap. You can’t put your bias and voting for a letter aside and think of the country instead and the rule of law.


49 posted on 05/26/2013 5:51:56 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Oops thypo in 44

I remember when he called out our troops murderers.

50 posted on 05/26/2013 5:52:44 PM PDT by Syncro ("So?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson