Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

Apparently Sen. Graham forgot what the complete First Amendment says...

:doh :doh :doh

Of course, the National Journal reporter gives Graham a pass and tries to 'splain things for him...

Is that what he really meant? I'd rather hear it from Graham, not from Brian Fung (the guy who wrote the article).

SOURCE LINK

Time can't pass fast enough until this guy retires. He and McCain just need to go.

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

He's following hard after Dick Durbin's comments Sunday morning on Fox News Sunday:

“But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”

Apparently, they've both already been in discussion over this issue.

They should go after the "Leaker", not the source. :doh

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

I did not see Durbin's comments. So, Fung is wrong. Graham meant to say what he said. He meant to question whether bloggers should have first amendment rights!

Just gets worse and worse...

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

Yes, but does it get worse and worse concerning Graham and McCain? I thought we were already at worst with those two. :heeheehee

Sometimes ALL of this feels like a bad Serpico movie. We are narking and no one is wanting to be open and honest. The only problem is, Serpico moves to Switzerland, but we have nowhere to go.

Our only answer is that we need to keep our prayer life 2:1 on the news cycle.

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

I fail to see where this is controversial...and I don't even like Graham.

Just looking at the shoddy, pathetic work of most bloggers should be enough reason to understand that they shouldn't get teh same protection legit journalists get.

He said first amendment right. The first amendment includes free speech, which covers (or should cover) everyone, including bloggers.

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

Yes, the 1st Amendment right, but larger than that, you can feel their fear of not having the media to manipulate the people in their words. We are Breitbart lives on...and it scares them to death.

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

So First Amendment rights only extend to legit journalists who publish respectable pieces?

Who's going to decide who qualifies for First Amendments rights? :coffee2

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

Freedom of the press:

"This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions, although freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to some restrictions, such as defamation law and copyright law.

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."[1] This includes everything from newspapers to blogs.

As famously said by journalist A. J. Liebling, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."[2] The individuals, businesses, and organizations that own a means of publication are able to publish information and opinions without government interference, and cannot be compelled by the government to publish information and opinions that they disagree with. For example, the owner of a printing press cannot be required to print advertisements for a political opponent, even if the printer normally accepts commercial printing jobs."


Freedom of speech:

"...Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising...."


I fail to see how the average blogger isn't protected, barring violation of some exceptions.

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

Maybe I'm reading a different arguement.

It doesn't look like anyone is trying to violate the free speech of a blogger. They are debating whether bloggers should have any protection under this media shield like real journalists receive.

They aren't saying bloggers shouldn't be allowed to say or write whatever they want to (their first amendment right), rather should these pseudo-journalists receive any sheilding. I don't care if flakes like Alex JOnes, Michael Savage or any number of the folks from the left receive any shielding. They are pretend journalists.

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

The First Amendment doesn't define who "real" or "pretend" journalists are. It makes NO exceptions. As shown in MissBrattified's post, protection does and should include bloggers.

This is important. In speaking about the media shield legislation, both Graham and Durbin ask about First Amendment rights. First Amendment is about free press and free speech. It is not about this media shield legislation. In fact, IMO, there should be no reason for this media shield legislation because the First Amendment guarantees free press and free speech.

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

Even if they fall through the filter of freedom of the press, (which is easily debatable) they are still protected by freedom of speech laws. They may be pretend journalists, but they aren't pretend American citizens.

Re: Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR
 

The operative word in the 1st Amendment would be "abridging".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Politicians need to get their definition of "abridging" nailed down.

There is no need for a "shield law" when you properly apply our 1st Amendment rights. The government licensing of the media will be the consequence of a shield law.

I do foresee a legal battle coming over the definition of whether or not a blogger is a legit journalist. The reason being, millions of people read millions of blogs being created and there is no control over it. That doesn't bode well in the political world. So, they will continue to push the narrative, or rather smokescreen, of a "shield law" when the 1st Amendment would suffice for anyone, including Alex Jones, et al.