\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 In other words, if you're a blogger, you should be forced to name your sources if you post something online: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/20978789-452/sen-dick-durbin-its-time-to-say-whos-a-real-reporter.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 No................. in otherwords, the government will get to establish who is a journalist. and the rest of us should just pipe down.. Dangerous .........................and stupid. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 If this had been suggested during the Bush administration, Durbin would have been apoplectic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the freedom of speech, or of the press." "Freedom of the press" is not a term synonymous with today's media or news reporting, it refers first and foremost to the printing press. The Amendment was saying that the spoken and written word is to be considered a Constitutionally protected right (within certain boundaries, of course, e.g., defamation and the like). Freedom of speech, followed immediately by freedom of the press, separated only by a comma, are therefore not completely independent clauses. They are bound together in the same clause of the First Amendment for this reason. It is unconvincing to believe that newspapers or TV news channels are entitled or were intended to be entitled to extra Constitutional protection above and beyond individuals or associations of individuals. . . Edited July 11, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the freedom of speech, or of the press." "Freedom of the press" is not a term synonymous with today's media or news reporting, it refers first and foremost to the printing press. The Amendment was saying that the spoken and written word is to be considered a Constitutionally protected right (within certain boundaries, of course, e.g., defamation and the like). Freedom of speech, followed immediately by freedom of the press, separated only by a comma, are therefore not completely independent clauses. They are bound together in the same clause of the First Amendment for this reason. It is unconvincing to believe that newspapers or TV news channels are entitled or were intended to be entitled to extra Constitutional protection above and beyond individuals or associations of individuals. . . "The Constitution is a living document." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 That's on life support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I'd love to hear this legal argument: Durbin: "The Framers never intended for the Constitution to apply to new media, which they never could have conceived of." Opposition: "But they did conceive of the 24 hour TV new cycle?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I'd love to hear this legal argument: Durbin: "The Framers never intended for the Constitution to apply to new media, which they never could have conceived of." Opposition: "But they did conceive of the 24 hour TV new cycle?" Weak counter, if only because Hearst and Pulitzer invented the "sensationalize and saturate" media practice long before TV was invented. The 24 hour news cycle is little different. But radio, newsreel footage, pool reporting, satellite communications, photography... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Weak counter, if only because Hearst and Pulitzer invented the "sensationalize and saturate" media practice long before TV was invented. The 24 hour news cycle is little different. But radio, newsreel footage, pool reporting, satellite communications, photography... WSJ did a dissection recently. Is a blogger affiliated with a major traditional news organization who appears only on the online version count in Durbin's definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 "The Constitution is a living document." No, it's a living, breathing document. Isn't anything sacred anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 No, it's a living, breathing document. Isn't anything sacred anymore? It also ***** and pisses, and has occasionally been known to perspire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 We've been noticing the stench emanating from the District for some time now. That explains it, or at least some of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 WSJ did a dissection recently. Is a blogger affiliated with a major traditional news organization who appears only on the online version count in Durbin's definition? I'm sure Durbin will answer that right after he gets a look at the content of the blog post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts