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.
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.
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.
Are dumbass senators entitled to Constitutional protection?