Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR

[n david]

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

Whether bloggers count as journalists has mostly been a matter of esoterics for reporter types. But as Congress weighs a media shield law in response to the Associated Press/Justice Department subpoena scandal, the question is gaining an urgency that lawmakers are finding hard to ignore as they turn to writing the bill.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took on the issue—and stumbled.

"Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves," he said. "Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times."

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

What Graham really meant to ask was whether bloggers deserve the specific protections of the First Amendment that are granted to the press.

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.

[Pressing-On]

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.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

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...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

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...

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

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.

[Nitehawk013]

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.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

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

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.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

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.

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

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

[MissBrattified]

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.

[Nitehawk013]

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.