Sen. Lindsey Graham Should Read the BOR

[n david]

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.

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.

[MissBrattified]

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.

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.

[Pressing-On]

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 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.

a·bridge (-brj)
tr.v. a·bridged, a·bridg·ing, a·bridg·es
1. To reduce the length of (a written text); condense.
2. To cut short; curtail. See Synonyms at shorten.

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.