Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
