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

[ATDM]

Have y'all not heard of The Bill of Privileges in the Constitution?

And who votes for scumbag politicians like that?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/feinst ... ege-right/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RoyGBiv]

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

[ATDM]

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

The title may not be accurate in the specifics, but it is DEFINITELY accurate in its generality. And I believe that people should be aware.

This title will apply fully in the future, if this continues, because the proverbial frog gets to boil to death slowly, not suddenly.

Given what I know about history, there is no reaction to this that would be considered an OVERreaction. That famous slippery slope is not a myth!

She is bringing her KalifoЯnian ideology to the Federal legislature, which means that it affects us.

[JALLEN]

What is a real reporter?

Do they have any licensing, educational requirements, testing, showing of good character or other idicia of fitness, or genuineness?

It sounds to me like Fox News and some others are starting to have an effect.

The Founders specified that "Congress shall make no law...." Too bad they didn't stop right there.

[RPBrown]

And who determines who is a "real" reporter? The feds.

Maybe we should determine who is a real patriotic politician.

[cb1000rider]

The title may not be accurate in the specifics, but it is DEFINITELY accurate in its generality.

Why re-post an title that is intentionally misleading if you know better?
I think stuff like this is done by sleaze-bag reporters (on both sides). It gets people to click and look at the coverage. Of course, many sheep just take the title on face value and push it across the internet.
It's no different than a car dealer advertising something that isn't available to get people into the dealership. It's about that ethical.

The Founders specified that "Congress shall make no law...." Too bad they didn't stop right there.

We'd probably be better off....

[JALLEN]

The Founders specified that "Congress shall make no law...." Too bad they didn't stop right there.

Don't blame ATDM for that one!

[ATDM]

The title may not be accurate in the specifics, but it is DEFINITELY accurate in its generality.

Why re-post an title that is intentionally misleading if you know better?

We'd probably be better off....

Again: you are looking at this issue VERY SUPERFICIALLY! I have lived through a regime like that, and you, apparently, have NOT! You have NO CLUE what this can lead to.

The reporter, who came up with this title did NOT mislead anyone at all. He was able to see through the technicality of one law that would apply to reporters only, and then may be amended to apply to the citizenry. If this doesn't alarm you, you are nearsighted. The title stands! If you have experience with a totalitarian regime personally, share it. Maybe then I will change my opinion.

For now the title is true to the essence and it stands.

[gthaustex]

And who determines who is a "real" reporter? The feds.
Maybe we should determine who is a real patriotic politician.

I can see that going wrong in all sorts of ways...

[ATDM]

People, who believe that this title is over the top, are both the reason and the effect of the political apathy in this country.

They say: "We are not reporters, so this law is not about us. This title is the work of the alarmists."

Yet, 20 years ago this amendment to the law was inconceivable, because these fascists were allowed to gain ground inch by inch.

The consequence? The most basic of rights — the right to speak freely, is being taken away... Yes, from journalists and the regular folk with blogs and alternative media... This time.

Do you think they will stop at that? There is an old adage: "If you seat a pig at the table, he will put his feet on the table."

What do you think is going to happen next to the 1st Amendment? Things don't get better without effort.

[EEllis]

I think the title is very misleading and not even close to the truth. What is being discussed isn't 1st A rights but legislative protections for reporters. A Media Shield Law is so Franklin wouldn't have to publish under a pseudonym not so some kid who scrawls on a wall with chalk gets special protections. This wouldn't restrict anyone's speech just protect the sources of real reporters. Now I'm not for a narrow definition of reporting but trying to pretend this is limiting rights when, in July, an appeals court said that reporters can be forced to give up their sources and that it isn't a 1st A right, is just ignoring the facts.

[cprems]

People, who believe that this title is over the top, are both the reason and the effect of the political apathy in this country.

They say: "We are not reporters, so this law is not about us. This title is the work of the alarmists."

Yet, 20 years ago this amendment to the law was inconceivable, because these fascists were allowed to gain ground inch by inch.

The consequence? The most basic of rights — the right to speak freely, is being taken away... Yes, from journalists and the regular folk with blogs and alternative media... This time.

Do you think they will stop at that? There is an old adage: "If you seat a pig at the table, he will put his feet on the table."

What do you think is going to happen next to the 1st Amendment? Things don't get better without effort.

Americans (post revolution) have yet to live through this. My hope is that it doesn't get to that point. I was lambasted by one poster for calling Americans apathetic and not getting involved. Maybe we have a different vantage point and can see it a little more clearer. My former Government wasn't totally totalitarian but it is very socialist.

It always starts off with something that "doesn't apply to me" Maybe (for me) this isn't the forum to discuss it. It appears that most on this forum are like minded individuals and will stick together. We have to fight together for ALL our rights. We can't pick and choose.

[ATDM]

I think the title is very misleading and not even close to the truth. What is being discussed isn't 1st A rights but legislative protections for reporters. A Media Shield Law is so Franklin wouldn't have to publish under a pseudonym not so some kid who scrawls on a wall with chalk gets special protections. This wouldn't restrict anyone's speech just protect the sources of real reporters. Now I'm not for a narrow definition of reporting but trying to pretend this is limiting rights when, in July, an appeals court said that reporters can be forced to give up their sources and that it isn't a 1st A right, is just ignoring the facts.

This point of view is simply looking at the semantics of the 1st Amendment. The title clearly indicates the EFFECT of the proposed law.

The proposed law has the INTENT of limiting free speech. It is accomplished via removing the protection for the source of information. Is it a huge step against free speech? No. Is it against free speech in general? Yes. If these "protections" are removed, YOUR information will be limited, because it simply will either never be learned, or it will not be published.

These protections exist EXACTLY for the reason of making information available to... WHOM? The regular folk — us. If this law will go into effect, who will lose? Again, us. There is no justification for that.

Therefore, I'll sat it again: the title goes to the essence and the effect of the proposed law. The title stands.

[MoJo]

"Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it." George Santayana


First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Martin Niemöller-

Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy.

Folks, the histories of the Third Reich and Soviet Communism are fraught with examples of good people standing by and doing nothing. It only takes a few people willing to overturn your way of life for it to happen. Be vigilant, and aware of what's going on and put a stop to it before it's too late. And it comes to this . . .

"If every Jewish and anti-Nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle, twenty rounds of ammunition, and the will to use it, Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."
--- Aaron Zelman ---

If you haven't done it, learn about how easily a small group of thugs took over a whole nation and plunged the world into the most horrible conflict in history. Do it before it's too late.

[ATDM]

"Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it." George Santayana

Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned.

If you haven't done it, learn about how easily a small group of thugs took over a whole nation and plunged the world into the most horrible conflict in history. Do it before it's too late.

Niemoller and his quote were exactly what I thought about, when I read the article. I think that for many people born in this country, it is hard to see how this gradual descent into primordial fascism can happen in America. Those, who know history well and/or those, who have experienced "freedomless" environment personally, are attuned to the ominous "little" things that are so clear to me in this proposed law.

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. ~ Ronald Reagan.

We, in this country, are not immune against tyranny. And, like in Nazi Germany, the change will not be sudden, but gradual. This law is nothing, but a small step toward limited rights...