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

[EEllis]

Isn't it odd that the Founding Fathers saw no need to provide "special protections" to reporters? Apparently it never occurred to them that the government might use its power and might to coerce reporters into revealing their sources. Apparently they thought that if a reporter committed a crime, they should go to jail like everyone else, but if they reported a crime someone else committed they had not committed a crime and could not be threatened with jail. Apparently additional protections are now needed because the government has overstepped its bounds and chosen to harass reporters into revealing their sources because law enforcement is abysmally incapable of developing their own cases and convicting people based on evidence. So now the government gets to decide who's protected and who's not and by doing so compromise the integrity of reporters by forcing them to play nice with the government or be subject to rule changes that place them in legal jeopardy.

It's all so complicated. Far too complicated for us simple citizens to understand, so we don't get that special privilege. Has nothing to do with rights, though. It's all about privileges. This is the current state of "logic" and "reason" in this country.

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 and then just not give details because they were reporters. Also lets not forget a lot of times the crime is talking to reporters especially when dealing with Federal issues. Whistleblowing may be one thing but what about people giving up real secrets for pure politics? The justice department already has rules making subpoenas to the press the last option for federal law enforcement not the first. What about civil cases? Say someone lies and gives some false info to the press. Should the reporter be able to deny you the ability to find out and sue someone who damaged you? It's not some simple situation that is because "cops can't solve crime anymore".

[baldeagle]

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?

and then just not give details because they were reporters. Also lets not forget a lot of times the crime is talking to reporters especially when dealing with Federal issues. Whistleblowing may be one thing but what about people giving up real secrets for pure politics?

Given the selective prosecution of that "crime", it's questionable that you even introduced it.

The justice department already has rules making subpoenas to the press the last option for federal law enforcement not the first.

Oh, gee. That makes it so much better. We promise we won't violate the Constitution first. We'll just do it when we need to.

What about civil cases? Say someone lies and gives some false info to the press. Should the reporter be able to deny you the ability to find out and sue someone who damaged you? It's not some simple situation that is because "cops can't solve crime anymore".

First of all, a good reporter will have two solid sources, not one. Secondly, it isn't the reporter's job to hand you your civil case on a platter. What makes you think it should be?

The purpose of the Constitution is to tie the hands of the government so they cant abuse their power. Every time we ignore their abuses, we chip away at freedom. Eventually we arrive where we are now. The Constitution means very little, and the President routinely ignores the laws he is sworn to uphold. No one does anything about it, so the abuses continue and grow larger daily. It won't be much longer before America is gone forever, if we don't start drawing the line.

It's funny that we say, "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned", yet we're so eager to help the government throw people in the clink for what we perceive as "crimes' because we don't think it should be so hard for the government to jail people. If someone commits a crime, leave the reporter alone. Prove a crime was committed. Do your job without taking unConstitutional shortcuts because it's too hard.

If a doctor, lawyer or psychologist witnesses a crime, they have a duty to report it. They do not have a duty to report that a patient told them they committed a crime. Nor does a reporter. And the government should no more go after a reporter than they would a doctor, lawyer or psychologist. Reporter shield laws would not be necessary if the government acted lawfully.

[VoiceofReason]

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?

and then just not give details because they were reporters. Also lets not forget a lot of times the crime is talking to reporters especially when dealing with Federal issues. Whistleblowing may be one thing but what about people giving up real secrets for pure politics?

Given the selective prosecution of that "crime", it's questionable that you even introduced it.

The justice department already has rules making subpoenas to the press the last option for federal law enforcement not the first.

Oh, gee. That makes it so much better. We promise we won't violate the Constitution first. We'll just do it when we need to.

What about civil cases? Say someone lies and gives some false info to the press. Should the reporter be able to deny you the ability to find out and sue someone who damaged you? It's not some simple situation that is because "cops can't solve crime anymore".

First of all, a good reporter will have two solid sources, not one. Secondly, it isn't the reporter's job to hand you your civil case on a platter. What makes you think it should be?

The purpose of the Constitution is to tie the hands of the government so they cant abuse their power. Every time we ignore their abuses, we chip away at freedom. Eventually we arrive where we are now. The Constitution means very little, and the President routinely ignores the laws he is sworn to uphold. No one does anything about it, so the abuses continue and grow larger daily. It won't be much longer before America is gone forever, if we don't start drawing the line.

It's funny that we say, "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned", yet we're so eager to help the government throw people in the clink for what we perceive as "crimes' because we don't think it should be so hard for the government to jail people. If someone commits a crime, leave the reporter alone. Prove a crime was committed. Do your job without taking unConstitutional shortcuts because it's too hard.

If a doctor, lawyer or psychologist witnesses a crime, they have a duty to report it. They do not have a duty to report that a patient told them they committed a crime. Nor does a reporter. And the government should no more go after a reporter than they would a doctor, lawyer or psychologist. Reporter shield laws would not be necessary if the government acted lawfully.

Texas Family Code, Chapter 261, 261.101 requires that professionals such as teachers, doctors, nurses, or child daycare workers must make a verbal report within 48 hours. Failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of up to 180 days and/or a fine of up to $2,000. Emphasis mine.
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/victims/childabuse.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[baldeagle]

Texas Family Code, Chapter 261, 261.101 requires that professionals such as teachers, doctors, nurses, or child daycare workers must make a verbal report within 48 hours. Failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of up to 180 days and/or a fine of up to $2,000. Emphasis mine.
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/victims/childabuse.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Suspected child abuse would be based on the observations of the professional, not an interview with a third party claiming the abuse. If a child comes to the hospital with two broken arms, of course the professionals should try to find out how it happened. If they suspect abuse, they should report it.

If a reporter witnessed a crime, they have an obligation, like every other citizen, to report it. If a reporter interviews someone who claims they witnessed a crime or committed one themselves, they have no obligation to report it to authorities.

[EEllis]

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.

and then just not give details because they were reporters. Also lets not forget a lot of times the crime is talking to reporters especially when dealing with Federal issues. Whistle blowing may be one thing but what about people giving up real secrets for pure politics?

Given the selective prosecution of that "crime", it's questionable that you even introduced it.

Huh? Why is that questionable? There are people leaking classified info all over the place and while they may claim they are whistle blowing usually their motives are much more murky.

The justice department already has rules making subpoenas to the press the last option for federal law enforcement not the first.

Oh, gee. That makes it so much better. We promise we won't violate the Constitution first. We'll just do it when we need to.

It isn't a constitutional issue.

What about civil cases? Say someone lies and gives some false info to the press. Should the reporter be able to deny you the ability to find out and sue someone who damaged you? It's not some simple situation that is because "cops can't solve crime anymore".

First of all, a good reporter will have two solid sources, not one. Secondly, it isn't the reporter's job to hand you your civil case on a platter. What makes you think it should be?

Hand me my case? If they are a witness with information how would applying the law to them like everyone else be handing me my case? What if you were Richard Jewell? I would want everyone of the people who leaked my name to the press and caused so much damage to be found and action taken against. That's not having the reporters "hand" me something. The reporters were a party to the activity and are arguably the only source for that info. Not to mention that the media seemed to be in a race to push that story the farthest how can one sue a paper for liable or defamation if the paper is shielded from giving their sources. "I had someone who told me but I won't reveal who" but was there really a source and was it legitimate? If reporters are shielded then you couldn't find out.

The purpose of the Constitution is to tie the hands of the government so they cant abuse their power. Every time we ignore their abuses, we chip away at freedom. Eventually we arrive where we are now. The Constitution means very little, and the President routinely ignores the laws he is sworn to uphold. No one does anything about it, so the abuses continue and grow larger daily. It won't be much longer before America is gone forever, if we don't start drawing the line.

It's funny that we say, "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned", yet we're so eager to help the government throw people in the clink for what we perceive as "crimes' because we don't think it should be so hard for the government to jail people. If someone commits a crime, leave the reporter alone. Prove a crime was committed. Do your job without taking unConstitutional shortcuts because it's too hard.

If a doctor, lawyer or psychologist witnesses a crime, they have a duty to report it. They do not have a duty to report that a patient told them they committed a crime. Nor does a reporter. And the government should no more go after a reporter than they would a doctor, lawyer or psychologist. Reporter shield laws would not be necessary if the government acted lawfully.

Where is a doctors privilege in the constitution? It's not. Neither is a reporters privilege. This is not a constitutional issue and pretending it is is just ignorance of the constitution and it's interpretation by SCOTUS.

[anygunanywhere]

If Feinstein says something needs fixin, it ain't broke. We need to keeep it like it is.

Anygunanywhere

[anygunanywhere]

I guess that in some people's world these are the journalists that need special laws to protect them.

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-of-k- ... st-example

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.

Anygunanywhere

[baldeagle]

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???

[mojo84]

Should have Deepthroat's identity been revealed? Would he have come forward if not for the promise of confidentiality granted?

[EEllis]

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???

If you witness a crime you can be compelled to testify. Why you would think otherwise is strange. You also can be compelled to give testimony in civil cases where there is no criminality. The 5th A says you can't be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself. So you can be compelled to otherwise give testimony. Matter of fact that first reporter back in 1848 wasn't jailed for refusing to give testimony in a court case. He refused to answer questions in a Senate inquiry. There is no constitutional right not to give testimony against anyone but yourself.

Now none of this is about reporting a crime either. You don't go to jail for not coming forward but if they find out you have info you can't withhold that info.

[VMI77]

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.

[MeMelYup]

What would this law do to the Zimmerman case?