Feinstein: 1st Amendment Is A Special Privilege, Not A Right

[anygunanywhere]

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?

Some are more equal than others, and anyone who pays any sort of attention to what goes on in this country ought to see this clearly.

Anygunanywhere

[EEllis]

This does not remove 1st A protection for anyone. It gives added protection for media.

Now think about what you just wrote. "Granting" added protection to a special class of citizen is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. If a professional reporter cannot go to jail for refusing to reveal a source but I can, then how do I have the same level of speech rights as him or her? I do not.

You don't get what a right is.

So you think the better way to go is to limit everyone including the press?

Without the source you have nothing to report. The law strips the ability of a citizen to report a story that requires protecting a source. If a blogger writes about an egregious governmental behavior, the veracity of which he obtained from confidential sources, then he will be put in jail. A reporter, writing the same story, will not. How in God's name can you not see that as an abridgement of our rights?

Again you don't even know what you are complaining about just that it's got to be bad because govt is bad. You are wrong about the bill and it's effects The blogger is covered. How can you be spewing this venom when you didn't bother to know what the bill says?

Government grants nothing. They only take away. They're not granting special rights to reporters. They stealing our free speech rights by governmental intimidation.

Make excuses all you want. It won't change the truth.

Your right they are not granting a right but giving a protection. Want the truth? Read the dang bill.

[EEllis]

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

Well for starters the 14th A is for the States not feds but what that would mean here is that all reporters should get this protection not just white ones. So no it's not meaningless it's just mis applied here.

[EEllis]

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.

Well first Fed courts just said that making reporters give up their sources isn't a restriction of free speach. And did you bother to look at who would be considered a reporter? It has nothing to do with where or how and everything to do with actual reporting. If you "report" stuff then you are a reporter, if you don't your not. This bill keeps some kid who tweets where he went to dinner from being considered a reporter. Now if you want to have a real discussion about it fine but the distortions and hysteria are a bit much

[G26ster]

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.

Well first Fed courts just said that making reporters give up their sources isn't a restriction of free speach. And did you bother to look at who would be considered a reporter? It has nothing to do with where or how and everything to do with actual reporting. If you "report" stuff then you are a reporter, if you don't your not. This bill keeps some kid who tweets where he went to dinner from being considered a reporter. Now if you want to have a real discussion about it fine but the distortions and hysteria are a bit much

Really?

First of all it's not the bill that is in question, it's the amendment proposed by Sen Feinstein..

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to "real reporters" and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.

"I can't support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … "

And

"Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a "covered journalist" as someone who gathers and reports news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and information." The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any "legitimate news-gathering activities."

That means, if you are just a blogger (see Feinstein quote above), and do not work for an entity or service, whether full time or freelance, you are not covered depending how the court may decide. You are the same as the 17 yr old in his basement.

There are three choices here


1. Cover everyone
2. Cover only legitimate journalists ( a definition that will be debated forever)
3. Cover no one

You have recognized only choices 2 and 3, as if choice 1 was not an option. I think that is what the debate here is about.

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP>
This bill keeps some kid who tweets where he went to dinner from being considered a reporter. Now if you want to have a real discussion about it fine but the distortions and hysteria are a bit much

What if that same kid hears about some government scandal while at dinner and "reports" it? This is stupid, It's okay to "give" protection to a class of people and not others? That kid has as much protection under the constitution as any "reporter". The press already has the natural right to freedom of speech and the kid should have the same protection as any elite from the Fourth Estate. Adding this law narrows the scope of that protection and abridges the freedom of speech.

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.

-em mine

[wheelgun1958]

Not quite what the title suggests.
Let's not all go breathless, makes us look like those other guys.

It's the "other guys" that win their case by being obstinant.

[baldeagle]

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

Oh, so make sure that some have more elite status than others. What bad could come from that?

[baldeagle]

So you think the better way to go is to limit everyone including the press?

No, I think free speech is free speech, and the government shouldn't be able to intimidate ANYONE for writing something, true or false, on their blog, in their newspaper, on their tv channel, on the facebook page or anywhere else. Where in the Constitution does it say that if the government doesn't like your speech they can arrest you and force you to divulge your sources for the information if you want to be free again?

Again you don't even know what you are complaining about just that it's got to be bad because govt is bad. You are wrong about the bill and it's effects The blogger is covered. How can you be spewing this venom when you didn't bother to know what the bill says?

So now demanding that the Constitution be honored is spewing venom? At least we know exactly where you stand.

Your right they are not granting a right but giving a protection. Want the truth? Read the dang bill.

You're so smart. Tell me when I didn't read it.

[EEllis]

Really?

First of all it's not the bill that is in question, it's the amendment proposed by Sen Feinstein..

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to "real reporters" and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.

"I can't support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … "

And

"Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a "covered journalist" as someone who gathers and reports news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and information." The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any "legitimate news-gathering activities."

That means, if you are just a blogger (see Feinstein quote above), and do not work for an entity or service, whether full time or freelance, you are not covered depending how the court may decide. You are the same as the 17 yr old in his basement.

There are three choices here


1. Cover everyone
2. Cover only legitimate journalists ( a definition that will be debated forever)
3. Cover no one

You have recognized only choices 2 and 3, as if choice 1 was not an option. I think that is what the debate here is about.

1 isn't an option. Think about it. No one could ever be compelled to testify about anything they have seen or heard because they are a "reporter". Heck I could claim the same because I write here and that would be absurd. And even the Feinstein amendment gives pretty good coverage. Besides regular reporters it covers part time, freelance, students (and why would you think it doesn't cover internet blogs as long as they do something with original created content? ) and anyone a judge thinks is a reporter. Now you want to get to it start looking for cases where you think someone should get that protection and didn't. With almost every state having a shield law this has to of come up and how the States have handled it does give up an example to work off of here. Honestly looking at the various state laws it is more inclusive than many. Many often just refer to reporter, news person, or Media and that's what I would perhaps prefer. I think one can tell what a reporter is and I also believe as a whole judges in the US are and would be proponents of a free press and generally inclusive over who or what a reporter is. I honestly believe that anyone that create original news content with any regularity, as is a blog that doesn't just paste a news story but actually calls people up that are involved to ask questions, would be included. I also don't think a kid who tweets that someone just taught him to cook meth or just watched a violent crime should be afforded the right to "shield" his source because he tweeted it.

[EEllis]

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.

-em mine

So? Granting extra protection does not, by definition, abridge anything. It doesn't restrict, limit, or prohibit.

[EEllis]

What if that same kid hears about some government scandal while at dinner and "reports" it? This is stupid, It's okay to "give" protection to a class of people and not others? That kid has as much protection under the constitution as any "reporter". The press already has the natural right to freedom of speech and the kid should have the same protection as any elite from the Fourth Estate. Adding this law narrows the scope of that protection and abridges the freedom of speech.

One the privilege isn't necessarily valid in the case of national security (govt official) Two there is usually some sort of agreement that the reporter will not reveal a source. No reporter would have protection under the situation you describe. Now you would have a argument if you think the govt official would pick out the kid and have him promise not to tell where he heard "xyz" but to go blog it and tell as many people as possible. Of course I could worry about gravity turning off and everyone flying of the earth which is a bit more likely.

[EEllis]

No, I think free speech is free speech, and the government shouldn't be able to intimidate ANYONE for writing something, true or false, on their blog, in their newspaper, on their tv channel, on the facebook page or anywhere else. Where in the Constitution does it say that if the government doesn't like your speech they can arrest you and force you to divulge your sources for the information if you want to be free again?

If you have knowledge of a crime and the cops know they can subpoena you and the court can require your testimony. How does that violate your right to free speech?

[G26ster]

1 isn't an option. Think about it. No one could ever be compelled to testify about anything they have seen or heard because they are a "reporter". Heck I could claim the same because I write here and that would be absurd. And even the Feinstein amendment gives pretty good coverage. Besides regular reporters it covers part time, freelance, students (and why would you think it doesn't cover internet blogs as long as they do something with original created content? ) and anyone a judge thinks is a reporter. Now you want to get to it start looking for cases where you think someone should get that protection and didn't. With almost every state having a shield law this has to of come up and how the States have handled it does give up an example to work off of here. Honestly looking at the various state laws it is more inclusive than many. Many often just refer to reporter, news person, or Media and that's what I would perhaps prefer. I think one can tell what a reporter is and I also believe as a whole judges in the US are and would be proponents of a free press and generally inclusive over who or what a reporter is. I honestly believe that anyone that create original news content with any regularity, as is a blog that doesn't just paste a news story but actually calls people up that are involved to ask questions, would be included. I also don't think a kid who tweets that someone just taught him to cook meth or just watched a violent crime should be afforded the right to "shield" his source because he tweeted it.

Because it has the following definition of a "journalist.":

"(A) means a person who— is, or on the relevant date, was, a salaried employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information by means of..."

I think that leaves an awful lot of room for interpretation, and does exclude bloggers who are not salaried, or contractors, or agents of entities. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that the motivation behind this amendment is to prevent little Jimmy in his basement from being shielding against testifying, nor do I believe all judges will have anything near the same interpretation of what a jornalist is or is not.

[Backfire]

Guys/Gals:

Feinstein is not all there mentally. This statement on the 2nd amendment is not the only absurdity she has said. She has a long list of statements over the past 10 years or so that seriously makes one wonder if her mental state is functional. She at times does not appear to be rational on most serious topics. She is not to be taken seriously.