TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:The first reporter to go to jail instead of giving up a source was in 1848 so it's not some new thing. I'll bet early press had no belief they could witness crimes

Clearly that's not what we were talking about or what this amendment is about. Why did you decide to introduce this bogus argument?

Umm, yes it is what we are talking about. Why would the sources need to be concealed? Either they (the reporter) have info about some criminality or they, by receiving certain information, are a party to the criminal offence. Now that is just the criminal side and there is also the civil side but clearly it is a big part of what this law, since it passed, is about.

You seem pathologically incapable of distinguishing between witnessing a crime and reporting a crime....which makes me wonder.....do you work for the government???

You are one patient guy. Some things are just impenetrable.

I don't get the criticism of the OP. I listened to the video and the old hag definitely says a category of people, "journalists," should get special privileges not available to anyone not so certified by the Feds. That means my unfettered RIGHT to practice "journalism" is to be abridged because I didn't go to the government's approved school for the dissemination of propaganda. That makes the title accurate. The 1st Amendment has no language limiting a free press....NONE. It's doesn't say only government approved press agents or specially trained propagandists called "journalists" have the right to a free press. The people who published pamphlets and newspapers when this Amendment was written were not specially trained or government certified "journalists." As a practical and logical matter, the reverse should be true: those trained propagandists called "journalists" should be the ones without any special privileges.