Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
You've Got To Be F$@king Kidding Me!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mugsy" data-source="post: 2260093" data-attributes="member: 18914"><p>Hey, have I misunderstood this issue? This has been portrayed as a "1st Amendment only applies to professional reporters" issue, whne, in fact, it really is discussing who is covered by a "Shield Law" protecting sources from subpeona's, etc.</p><p></p><p>If it is the latter, then the issue is "when is one a member fo the press vice just being some dude shooting off his mouth over the internet"? Or is there a difference?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mugsy, post: 2260093, member: 18914"] Hey, have I misunderstood this issue? This has been portrayed as a "1st Amendment only applies to professional reporters" issue, whne, in fact, it really is discussing who is covered by a "Shield Law" protecting sources from subpeona's, etc. If it is the latter, then the issue is "when is one a member fo the press vice just being some dude shooting off his mouth over the internet"? Or is there a difference? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
You've Got To Be F$@king Kidding Me!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom