but according to Fineswine, al jizzmoglobin is a REAL news outfit... go figure“Do you think maybe real reporters have a real death wish?”
So you publish something that’s anti-government. They pull your license. Soon, all storied would have to be government sensor approved. (They’d call it the office of verification and authentication.)
Ok, I read it twice, I think I get it... Cake for me but not for thee!
As I see it anyone who is willing to put their name and good reputation out there either in Physical Ink or Electronic Ink no matter whether they are paid for doing so or not is to be afforded the protections of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
thanks for posting this Kaslin and please note that my criticism isn’t pointed at you.
Now, having read this piece, can anyone tell me which side of the issue is the author standing? Why would any responsible person (that dismisses the dhimmicrats) favor legislation that cheapens the 1st Amendment?
but according to Fineswine, al jizzmoglobin is a REAL news outfit... go figure Oh, wait a minute. There are no licensing requirements mentioned in the First Amendment.
The fact that Debra is on the same side as Feinstein should have given her a warning.
“But then a terrorist group can — wink, wink — report on and broadcast a violent attack for the purpose of intimidation and then claim the mantle of reportage.
Likewise, an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.”
There are laws that can be put in place for her examples of abuses of the law. this is similar to the first Amendment and someone screaming “Fire” (or nowadays, “Gun”) in a crowded movie theater. That example is not enough to invalidate the First Amendment for everybody, does it? I therefore reject her examples. The critics are right that the Feinstein law gives the government too much power by allowing it to regulate who gets to call themselves a “journalist”.
I don't care who you are if you publish national security security information that puts our armed forces, civilians and nation in harms was then you go to jail.
The leaker can have the top bunk and you can shower together and brag about your treason.
Seriously, reporters have shown reckless abandonment of our security countless times in the past this law would codify the practice. What we are really talking about here is “shielding” them from all responsibility and consequences of their treason.
The only real reporters are sports writers who can’t be trusted either.
So, Debra J. Saunders believes there should be a “shield law” that applies only to Democrat propaganda specialists (”real reporters”)?
I don’t think so, Deb. Now beat it.
And who decides the qualification of “real” reporter?
.
Debra J. Saunders is a real idiot.
You have got to be kidding. Saunders is delusional. Let's approach this at its most basic level: the founding principle of justice in the United States is one set of rules by which everyone lives. No special privileges, no Special Rules for Special People. No protected classes, rights for everyone. The further we depart from this principle the more fragmented and Balkanized the country becomes.
When journalists as a group function not as investigators, but as apologists, instigators, manipulators of public opinion, bag men for a corrupt and criminal government, then they are completely unworthy of any protection at all and become the very first to demand it. And that is precisely what is going on here.
...an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.
They do. And sometimes they should, especially when that classification is constructed around protecting crime and outrage within the government. Journalists used to do that. Now they call for the perpetrators' heads like any other obedient little class of administration toadies. No sale, Debra. If we all don't enjoy this protection, you don't.
The problem, of course, is the internet. There is entirely too much free exchange of information going on. Virtually anyone can share information, express an opinion or report on events and get their message out to millions of people. This has to be stopped. /s
What is a “real” journalist?
I am reminded of C.S. Lewis’ remark regarding illusions (paraphrase): The reality of the event is not in question; the question is, is it a real illusion or a real pink elephant?
So again, what is a “real” journalist? Someone who belongs to a defined organization which purportedly reports the news of event(s), or someone independent of any organization who reports the very same news of the same event?