Skip to comments.Dick Durbin: Are bloggers and tweeters entitled to constitutional protection?
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:
Youve raised an important point and I heard Sen. Graham call for special counsel, Durbin said. Im 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 its 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 hed know that the Founders knew all too well the danger of having somebody like, well, Dick Durbin, ever ending up as the arbiter of whos entitled to rights.
it is too bad that sob durbin is
>>Dick Durbin: Are bloggers and tweeters entitled to constitutional protection?
So this is how America ends? With lifetime politicians “deciding” who has Constitutional rights?
Durbin, did not being covered by the Constitution
stop Tom Paine?
Dick Durbin before he dicks you..
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 ones 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.
Pick one as the catalysis, either Ft. Sumter or Arch Duke Ferdinand. Your call.
Very well said.
Tick Turban is an ignoramus.
TRANSLATION: “Ordinary citizens are property of the big-government/big-corporate criminal complex and have no rights of any kind.”
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.”
IL socialist thinking at its finest from Sen. Turban.
Bring it Dickey poo.
Oh ye eunoch of subterranean IQ.
“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 worlds 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.
Dick Turban. Get the mental picture?
The light is shining on you Durban, you cockroach. Run and hide before someone drops a foot!
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.
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.
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.
That question is settled law.
408 U.S. 665 (1972)
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.
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
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.
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.
“It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets.”
Dang right....ask the Mexicans who hawk the escort services on the Las Vegas strip....
Are dumbass senators entitled to Constitutional protection?
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?
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.
After all, rights come from the government don’t they?/Sarc with a capital S.
I also add that that free speech can be anonymous as was much of the political speech in the days of our founders.
303 U.S. 444 (1938)
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.
Durbin and his ilk are a threat to our survival as a free republic.
‘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.
In all seriousness, bloggers and tweeters are more entitled to Constitutional protection than the lying propagandists at MSNBC are, for example.
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.
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?
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
Bring back public hangings.
You know what THEY say: DICK -DICK before DICK DICKS YOU!
I'm reporting you to email@example.com and #attackwatch......the EPA needs to know what you've been up to comrade. /s
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 Obamas former Senate seat.
At the time Crossroads GPS was airing scathing ads against former Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. However, Crossroads GPS hasnt 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.
He says "It is absolutely unacceptable to single out any political group."
"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.
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 Nixons 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.
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.
“Congress shall make NO law . . .”
That must be extremely difficult for Durbin to comprehend.
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?
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.
I remember when he called
out our troops murderers.