Feinstein at it again, this time attacking the 1st Amendment

T

ThesNazud

New member
This time in an apparent attack on the 1st Amendmemt...

http://benswann.com/senate-bill-attempts-to-make-the-right-of-free-press-a-privilege



Ok, one can make an argument why even with her 2A stance she has stayed and elected official. However I now ask in earnest... HOW???


This is to me nothing less than the first step to government media. Seriously, how has govt run media in the past been a good idea? It bothers me on a fundamental level that they can say, 'Your not a real journalist' or even tell(for example here only) Tom Brokaw that his confidential source is no longer confidential because they believe it is terrorist related...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feinstein is more of an antique than I am. The dawning of the electronic age and the birth of the Internet changed forever the concept of what a "journalist" is. Senator Feinstein just doesn't get it.

Today's blog is tomorrow's Drudge Report. Beyond that, her example of Snowden makes zero sense. Snowden doesn't have confidential sources to protect; Snowden IS (or was) the source for at least two other "journalists."
 
It's all political. She's trying to tilt the tables away from First Amendment protections for people that point out problems with the government and blog about it. Not going to pass.
 
From the article:

Senator Charles Schumer says that this bill “balances the need for national security with that of a free press.”
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware there was a need for such a "balance." I find the very idea unsettling.

In a just and free society, there shouldn't be a need to "balance" freedom of the press with national security. Sure, some things need to be kept secret, such as nuclear launch codes, but those should be exceptions rather than the rule.

It doesn't surprise me that Feinstein and Schumer want to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights as privileges. They've done that with another important civil liberty for years.

(Has anyone found a bill number for this?)
 
Isn't it ironic that they always name them the opposite of what they are?

The reduce gun violence act

The free flow of information act

The SAFE act

And a couple others that aren't kosher for this board :mad:
 
The bill is a special shield law protecting reporters, however defined, from laws of general applicability; e.g., more difficult to subpoena certain information, etc. Therefore, the bill does indeed give reporters certain privileges that are not protected under the First Amendment. The bill's privileges should not be extended to every keyboard jockey on the Internet. They can still claim First Amendment protection when it is appropriate to do so.
 
I have started asking politicians to define where they stand with respect to the Bill of Rights.

Would you believe neither the Tea Party nor my congressman have deigned to respond to what should be a knee-jerk question?

I got started on this path because I finally made the connection that almost all of the noise is about the 2nd Amendment, yet ALL of the amendments are under severe pressure, as we see here.

We may need to start a campaign for a Bill of Rights Protection litmus test. Clearly, swearing to defend and support the Constitution has become inadequate.
 
KyJim, under the proposals I saw, such "keyboard jockeys" as Matt Drudge (higher readership than most newspapers) would not necessarily qualify.
 
Senator Charles Schumer says that this bill “balances the need for national security with that of a free press.”
Click to expand...

Tom, that quote jumped out at me too. Apparently all the government has to do is cry "terrorism" and it can do whatever it wants.

Funny, I don't feel much more secure with these "balances". But then I don't think "national security" is about protecting you and me anymore.
 
Your right National Security is being used as a crutch to help diminish our rights. All the money sent to other countries that actually hate the USA and there is no money to take care of the homeless problem right here. The current politicians need a lesson on representing the people that elected them and stop being the self serving politicians they have become.
 
Same Senator that wants to limit the Second Amendment to official state militias, wants to limit the First Amendment to official state journalists. Hard to figure? Not really.
 
JASmith said:
I got started on this path because I finally made the connection that almost all of the noise is about the 2nd Amendment, yet ALL of the amendments are under severe pressure, as we see here.
Click to expand...
Based on the Boston bomber search, the searches and seizures in Nawlins during Katrina, the search for the ex-Navy guy/ex-cop who turned killer in California (Doner?), and the almost explosive proliferation of no-knock, dynamic entry warrant "services, I'd say the Fourth Amendment is in some serious difficulty these days, as well.
 
KyJim, under the proposals I saw, such "keyboard jockeys" as Matt Drudge (higher readership than most newspapers) would not necessarily qualify.
Click to expand...
I'm a frequent visitor to the his site but he actually writes about one story a year. Of course, when it involves a president and a stained dress, it only takes one. :)
 
Senator Charles Schumer says that this bill “balances the need for national security with that of a free press.”
Click to expand...

Mr. Schumer is willing to trade some of our Liberty for temporay security.

Benjamin Franklin would say he deserves neither.

I concur.
 
So when is the press itself going to wake up? Surely most reporters have seen "V for Vendetta" at least once?
Click to expand...

Sadly a lot of reporters are complicit in this. The fulcrum on this issue is who gets shielded. Quite a few reporters understand the problem. But anyprofession, and especially one undergoing the disruption seen in the reporting business -- is always tempted to fall back into guild like protections. In much of the world, including countries with "high" freedom of the press scores, professional accreditation by a government agency or union was until recently accepted as benign.

This is the inherent problem with shield laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top