You've Got To Be F$@king Kidding Me!

[Glocktogo]

Words escape me.

http://news.yahoo.com/senators-ponder-bloggers-deserve-first-amendment-protection-100210649.html

Senators ponder if bloggers deserve First Amendment protection.

"However, in today’s world, the definition of the word “journalist” means different things to different people, and two powerful Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin, say journalists only should enjoy extended First Amendment protection if they work for traditional media outlets on a paid basis.

The Free Flow of Information Act was introduced earlier this year by Senator Charles Schumer, who had introduced a similar bill in 2009 with the late Senator Arlen Specter. Back then, Feinstein and Durbin wanted strict definitions of the word “journalists” after the WikiLeaks story broke.

Their current amendment to the bill poses the same questions.

“This bill is described as a reporter shield law — I believe it should be applied to real reporters,” Feinstein said last week. “The current version of the bill would grant a special privilege to people who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications.”

 

[Spata]

**** those ******* pieces of **** i hope they all die with each others **** in their mouths.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

^^
Bless
Sweet
Sugardrops
bubblegum


I effing love madlibs, mate.

 

[}BuLL]

lol, nicely done!

 

[RETOKSQUID]

So, how many of the tree hugging anti gun liberals are going to get all worked up about this one?

Probably none, as long as they continue to get their free crap.

 

[mugsy]

Hey, have I misunderstood this issue? This has been portrayed as a "1st Amendment only applies to professional reporters" issue, whne, in fact, it really is discussing who is covered by a "Shield Law" protecting sources from subpeona's, etc.

If it is the latter, then the issue is "when is one a member fo the press vice just being some dude shooting off his mouth over the internet"? Or is there a difference?

 

[Old Fart]

Posting in this thread will get you a visit now.

 

[Glocktogo]

Hey, have I misunderstood this issue? This has been portrayed as a "1st Amendment only applies to professional reporters" issue, whne, in fact, it really is discussing who is covered by a "Shield Law" protecting sources from subpeona's, etc.

If it is the latter, then the issue is "when is one a member fo the press vice just being some dude shooting off his mouth over the internet"? Or is there a difference?

It doesn't matter. The 1st Amendment applies to ALL citizens. If you're going to extend a protection under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment to anyone, then you MUST extend it to everyone. It doesn't matter if it's a journalist propagandist writing a shill piece for the power elite, a true journalist like Sharly Atkisson of CBS writing a critical piece, a blogger on the web or a person on the street telling another person about a piece of information. They all need the same protections from an overy powerful government against persecution for speaking out.

Anyone supporting this load of tripe is a traitor to their country, it's citizens and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

 

[ripnbst]

First they came for the bloggers but I said nothing because I was not a blogger...

In before someone else drops this tired line. I'm nearly to the "Duke Nukem tagline" point...nearly.

Do congressmen/women and senators have to swear to uphold the constitution? What is the oath that they take if any?

 

[cichlid-dave]

**** those ******* pieces of **** i hope they all die with each others **** in their mouths.

^^
Bless
Sweet
Sugardrops
bubblegum


I effing love madlibs, mate.

Funny as hell sad that that these folks can feel that they can do this.