TexasCHLforum.com

When Detroit Gun Rights Examiner Rob Reed reported last week that University of Kansas Professor of Journalism David Guth wants the children of NRA members to be killed in mass shootings, he was unfortunately not describing a unique event. This kind of sick, blind, "wish-you-were-dead" hatred from those who claim to be working for "violence prevention" is nothing new. It's not even new among journalism professors.

G26ster wrote:

EEllis wrote:

G26ster wrote:

EEllis wrote: I'm going to hold my tongue because saying what I'm thinking would be considered a violation. This does not remove 1st A protection for anyone. It gives added protection for media. Laws can't remove constitutional rights so what the heck are you guys worried about? You can't have it both ways. And by the way do you even know what the bill says? Because your "examples" have no connection to what the bill is about. It doesn't protect what reporters "report". That is already protected and this bill has nothing to do with that. It protects sources not content.

Is this not an amendment to a protection bill that only gives the protection to so-called legitimate journalists to not reveal their sources? This means the ability of those not considered "legitimate" is reduced to publish important subject matter. They won't get the story in the first place. Why would a source wishing to remain anonymous give it to them? Then the issue really is, who is legitimate and who is not, and frankly the gov't deciding that is an issue. To me, it is a back door way of limiting the free speech of those not considered legitimate because they will not get the story in the first place, due to their source not being protected, and an ever evolving definition of "legitimate" that will change at the whim of those in power.

Oh so make sure no one has protection, yep that's the smart way to go

So, "equal protection under the law" is meaningless?