Posted on 05/27/2013 4:23:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Thanks to the Obama administration’s attacks on the Associated Press and its representation in federal court that Fox News’ James Rosen is a spy for asking questions, one has to wonder whether the First Amendment applies to anyone in the Age of Hope and Change. Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Senator Dick Durbin whether Barack Obama’s promise to have Eric Holder look into cases of abuse that he personally approved represents a conflict of interest, but Durbin dodges that question and talks instead about the shield law proposed repeatedly over the last few years as the appropriate Congressional response to the scandal. However, Durbin asks what exactly “freedom of the press” means in 2013, and wonders aloud whether it would include bloggers, Twitter users, and the rest of the Internet media:
Here’s what the First Amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Press at the time would certainly have meant newspapers, which were the high-tech information revolution of the day. It would also have included pamphleteers, perhaps even more than newspapers, as pamphleteers helped drive revolutionary sentiment. Their modern-day analogs would arguable be bloggers and Twitter users, those who reported news and proclaimed opinions outside of the establishment press.
However, Durbin’s asking the wrong question. The question isn’t who gets protected, but what. Journalism is not an identity or a guild, but an action and a process — and anyone engaged in that activity must be treated equally before the law. A shield law based on membership via employment in privileged workplaces or certified by guilds doesn’t protect journalism, it becomes rent-seeking behavior that ensures that only the large players get protected, as I wrote ten days ago.
Durbin’s question isn’t even the biggest non-sequitur in this argument. The biggest non-sequitur is the shield law itself, which wouldn’t have even addressed the Rosen or AP situation. And considering that the Obama administration ignored existing statutes in both cases, why should we believe they would obey a shield law when it got in their way?
Yes Dick Durben it sure damn do apply to bloggers and every man or woman on a corner. Call me sometime and I’ll show you my freedom of speech. You feckless little slimeball.
Since the Bill of Right were meant for We the People, they shouldn’t apply to the piggy politicians like Dick Turban in the District of Corruption. The Bill of Rights were intended to protect the people from the politicians.
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 to publicize our ideas.
In this regard, no CBS anchor has anymore claim to special treatment for being part of “the press” than does any blogger.
Where in the Constitution is there a requirement that the press needs a license or a permit from the government or other members of the press to be a member of the press? That is really what Durbin’s question is about. If ANYONE wants to air an opinion publicly, in the open, for others to read or see in the square, whether real or virtual, one does not need anyone’s permission to become a journalist. It is a natural right of every person to express his or her opinion. This is a move to limit freedom of speech to those people who are properly licensed. Remember, a license or a permit is legally always a government issued permission to allow the holder to do something illegal.
43 North Wonders: Do Laws Against Treason Apply to Moron Politicians from Illinois?
America wonders does Dick “less” Durbin matter?
Durbin probably thinks the gov’t should issue “press” licenses and that only those have First Amendment rights.
If flag burning constitutes speech, Twitter and Blogs constitute speech.
The IRS gamble didn’t work so scum like Durbin are trying to find another way to silence conservatives/republicans. Makes me wonder if Durbin ever sent a note complaining about orgs. trying to get exemptions.
"Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That’s why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government overreach." –President Obama
Now, Durbin is babbling about a "shield law."
Mr. President and Sen. Durbin, do you not understand that the First Amendment to the People's Constitution is the supreme law of the land which "shields" the press, excludes it from your purview, and was the Founders' intended way to prevent people like you and your fellow "progressives" from assaulting the Creator-endowed rights of "We, the People"?
No further law is needed. Just respect that Constitution which, according to all who love liberty, and when its principles are respected, will protect and "shield" the freedom of the press and all the other areas excluded from intrusion by government officials.
Durbin figures the First Amendment applies only to bloggers, scribes, talking heads and others with the Democrat Party Seal Of Approval.
Never has a man’s first name been so appropriate.
Well if the argument is the 2nd amendment was meant for a world of muskets, then maybe the 1 st only applies to a press of quill pens and hand set type...
Dick Turban, American Traitor.
Yes. I guess the idiot forgot that the 1st Amendment also protects free speech, not just press.
The press isn’t even first on the list. 9 out of 10 liberals have never read the bill of rights. All liberal politicians ignore the bill of rights. Durbin is a moron of the highest level.
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.
