S.C. lawmaker proposes registry for journalists

C

chimo

New member
State Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, filed a bill Tuesday in the S.C. House to establish a “responsible journalism registry” to be operated by the S.C. secretary of state.

That bill’s summary says the bill would “establish requirements for persons before working as a journalist for a media outlet and for media outlets before hiring a journalist.” The summary also includes registration fees, and sets fines and criminal penalties for violations.

A person seeking to register with the state as a journalist would have to submit a criminal record background check and “an affidavit from the media outlet attesting to the applicant’s journalistic competence.”

The proposed registry “is ridiculous and totally unconstitutional,” said Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association. The State newspaper is a member of the Press Association.

The government cannot require journalists to register, Rogers said, citing the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which ensures freedom of the press.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politi...s/the-buzz/article55449025.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

If only gun owners stood up for our rights the way that journalists attempt to stand up for theirs perhaps we wouldn't have had bans on carrying handguns in Texas, the Sullivan Act, restrictions on concealed carry, the NFA of 34, the GCA of 68 and all the nonsense since.

My question is, are we willing to stand up now in an attempt to roll back this nonsense...or are we going to continue to tolerate it?
 
You mean like the NRA? I don't understand what you're arguing here.

To be comparable it would be more appropriate that typewriters(yes I am that old) would have to be registered and could only be procured after a thorough background check.

"Typewriters don't libel people. People libel people!" :D
 
Like the NRA? The same NRA that has folded on things like background checks and has advanced the notion that getting government permission to carry a firearm is a good thing?

Don't get me wrong, I am a life member and I appreciate what the NRA does for us, when it actually protects our rights...but I also strongly disagree on their tendency to compromise on things that should not be compromised.

That is the point, if gun owners and the NRA had steadfastly refused to compromise concerning our right to bear arms as journalists have steadfastly refused to compromise on their alleged right to be journalists, we would be MUCH better off.

Our unalienable human rights, one of which is the right to bear arms (whether a free press is one of those rights is debatable) should not be subject to compromise.

Submitting in order to get along is not standing up for your rights...it is giving them away.
 
If this is trying to be satirical to defend the 2nd Amend., it won't work. I prefer mental and intelligence exams for elected officials - ok with that, Rep. Pitts.
 
The proposed registry “is ridiculous and totally unconstitutional,” said Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association.
Click to expand...

This is, I believe the entire point of the exercise.

The government cannot require journalists to register, Rogers said, citing the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which ensures freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

Oh, my, aren't they upset when it their ox being gored! The quoted bill essentially would impose the same kind of restriction on being a member of the press that the press has supported for being a gun owner, despite the Second Amendment to the bill of rights, which ensures the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The point, I think, is to show that the SAME "ridiculous and totally unconstitutional" measures cannot be "common sense & safety" when applied to gun ownership.

Seems like the only thing the bill missed was requiring "journalists" to pass a background check EACH TIME before having an article published. That would bring it more in line with the current focus of the gun control people today.

I'm sure that any suggestion like that would be met with cries of CENSORSHIP!!!, but would it really be censorship, IF the gov. did NOT tell you what you could write about, or what to say or not say, just simply required "responsible journalists" to pass a background check before getting their work printed /aired? After all if it saves even one life, for the children, isn't it worth it?????
:rolleyes:
(absolutely, this is sarcasm, for those who do not recognize it...)

ironic, isn't it, how much they scream about their rights, and how extreme such proposals are, when we want to apply to them, THE SAME THING they demand be applied to US????
 
I am all in favor of a 10 Day Waiting Period before publishing or airing any current news stories, some cooling off is needed before the public's emotions are assaulted.
 
I prefer mental and intelligence exams for elected officials - ok with that, Rep. Pitts.
Click to expand...

+1 on that.
Require all elected officials to pass a series of science based exams to demonstrate they have at least a fundamental understanding of how things work and why.

In fact, I think it would be a good idea to require some type of a 4 year science degree to even get on a ballot for election.
 
I also wonder if this is partly in response to Sean Penn declaring all of journalism broken, except for himself in his interview after the El Chavo interview.
 
zinc said:
"Typewriters don't libel people. People libel people!"
Click to expand...

That's outstanding.

44amp said:
I'm sure that any suggestion like that would be met with cries of CENSORSHIP!!!, but would it really be censorship, IF the gov. did NOT tell you what you could write about, or what to say or not say, just simply required "responsible journalists" to pass a background check before getting their work printed /aired? After all if it saves even one life, for the children, isn't it worth it?????
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech describes a right, but not an unlimited right. After all, didn't Jefferson write that your right to speak ends where my ears and feelings begin?

I am not an enemy of freedom of speech, but I agree that we can find some common sense legislation that would address tragedies like spoken word poetry and Adam Sandler movies.

However, we could start small. How about the abuse of email by the unscrupulous? Republicans and Democrats can agree that spam is undesirable. That's why I am announcing my idea for email regulation that will still allow reasonable communication for ordinary folks.

If someone wants to send an email, he just needs to submit an FCC form 7344 at any of the licensed email transferor. The FCCL will keep track of the applicant's name, address, birth date, Social Security number, height, weight, favorite ice cream and grammar school crush just in case the applicant turns into a spammer later.

Yes, the ACLU and Google will hate this. What would you expect from Big Speech?
 
zukiphile, I see you are on to something here.

The fact is, the Founding Fathers could scarcely have envisioned a world where the written world is no longer printed on a page and physically transported from place to place. Rather, now ideas can be posted from not only home or business, but from anyplace one happens to be. A fleeting thought could be sent out for the entire world to read in seconds. How many feelings have been hurt, jobs lost, and bad conduct supported by a tweet or Facebook post sent in the heat of passion?

What we need is common sense regulations. Delays in the sending of messages. Background checks for those obtaining smartphones, complete with exams to ensure their spelling, syntax, and grammar are the type of thing that should be allowed in public. Teachers should be able to put people on a "Do Not Sell" list if they are prone to excitable outbursts or profanity.

We aren't trying to take anybody's speech away. We just want to make sure the right to free speech is exercised responsibly. It's to keep the impressionable children safe from silly and stupid thoughts. If we can keep just one child from reading Insane Clown Posse lyrics, it will be worth it.

(sheds tear)
 
I am not interested in the social media of everyday folks. I just don't think any civilian needs to send 2 million emails about 700 lumen flashlights every day.

I just want to ban high capacity email. I'll stop at that. I pinky swear.
 
Last edited:
I’m also concerned about the number of electronic devices some journalist have. I understand that some of them have a literal “arsenal” of devices in their homes. Who needs anything more than one desk top computer.
 
I am all in favor of a 10 Day Waiting Period before publishing or airing any current news stories, some cooling off is needed before the public's emotions are assaulted.
Click to expand...

After the way the media makes mountains out of molehills when it comes to guns and/or cops, I agree................
 
OK, legal question here regarding the OP.

If, (I guess that may be a big if) the Repub legislature passes it and the Repub governo signs off and it becomes law, the higher courts will probably strike it down. Can / will the higher courts apply the same reasoning to the 2A? Or because it's two different contexts they'll dismiss the 2A comparison?
 
Before any journalist, licensed or not, transfers any story to his editor, Form 4473 J needs completed, under penalty of law for a false answer, felony level, by the journalist affirming that he or she is not an alcoholic or unlawful user of marijuana.

That should shut down the entire mainstream media in about three days.
 
2ndsojourn, Ist Am. issues benefit from a large amount of very strong case law.

I like the Ist Am. analogies too, but the realities are that the case law is much thinner and weaker for 2d Am. issues. As exciting as Heller was, it was a 5-4 decision.

William Suter noted to me that an advocate before the Sup Ct shouldn't argue from 5-4 victories because they are too tenuous to carry much persuasive value amongst the audience of nine.

That isn't a comment on the quality of the majority decision in Heller or a conclusion that it was not a big deal, but the right isn't as established as free speech rights.
 
Last edited:
Only for concealed carry of your phone. Open carry is constitutional, of course.

You may not use it inside city limits, though, except in self-defense. No pizza orders, that is brandishing and not permitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top