“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?Yes Dick, they are. For the very reason that the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Amendment in the first place. I've been writing this blog for over 5 years now. Political commentary, research, statistics, live coverage of events, the works. Guess what skippy... I AM a 'journalist'. I just didn't get a degree in it nor am I paid, yet my readership is increasing, unlike the 'traditional media' you want to 'shield'.
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.”
This is the modern statist in action.
4 comments:
Makes almost as much sense as restricting 2nd Amend rights to members of the well regulated militia..
Durbin just wants all journalism to be handled by large corporate entities with central offices... makes it so much easier to bug.
What part of "the people" don't they understand?
@Rob: Why do you radicals insist on reading the Bill of Rights with your reactionary, insurrectionist, individualist view!?
Everyone knows that "the people" refers to a collective body, like approved journalist corporations and the National Guard. I mean, c'mon, you really expect us to let any given individual person have rights? Are you a fascist!?
Post a Comment