TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:It doesn't restrict or effect speech at all. Its only effect adding protection for the press and on what we consider press, by and large is more forgiving than what we would've considered press for the last 50 years. Posting gossip on facebook should not entitle you to extra protection and that is what the issue was.

Are you insane? Read some of the "broadsides" written in the early days of our Republic. They had no basis whatsoever in fact and were blatant attempts to smear politicians. Yet the First Amendment protected them, and they could not be harassed by the government for having written them.

ANYTHING that chills speech of ANY kind is an abridgement of the First Amendment. You'd better wake up before you're in prison wondering what you did wrong. Totalitarianism is on the march, and you are aiding it.

We need additional legislation on the 1st Amendment about as badly as we need it on the 2nd.

Leave it alone.

So I guess reasonable speech restrictions and common sense speech laws are out of the question?



Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:So I guess reasonable speech restrictions and common sense speech laws are out of the question?



Anygunanywhere

Not in this administration they aren't.

Purplehood wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:So I guess reasonable speech restrictions and common sense speech laws are out of the question?



Anygunanywhere

Not in this administration they aren't.

Perhaps we could have fewer restrictions and laws and more transparency??? Not a chance with this group...

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:It doesn't restrict or effect speech at all. Its only effect adding protection for the press and on what we consider press, by and large is more forgiving than what we would've considered press for the last 50 years. Posting gossip on facebook should not entitle you to extra protection and that is what the issue was.

Are you insane? Read some of the "broadsides" written in the early days of our Republic. They had no basis whatsoever in fact and were blatant attempts to smear politicians. Yet the First Amendment protected them, and they could not be harassed by the government for having written them.

ANYTHING that chills speech of ANY kind is an abridgement of the First Amendment. You'd better wake up before you're in prison wondering what you did wrong. Totalitarianism is on the march, and you are aiding it.

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.

Why do reporters require protection? From whom?

Why shouldn't reporters be required to appear and testify like anyone else? Why should their speech be more precious than anyone else's?

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.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:It doesn't restrict or effect speech at all. Its only effect adding protection for the press and on what we consider press, by and large is more forgiving than what we would've considered press for the last 50 years. Posting gossip on facebook should not entitle you to extra protection and that is what the issue was.

Are you insane? Read some of the "broadsides" written in the early days of our Republic. They had no basis whatsoever in fact and were blatant attempts to smear politicians. Yet the First Amendment protected them, and they could not be harassed by the government for having written them.

ANYTHING that chills speech of ANY kind is an abridgement of the First Amendment. You'd better wake up before you're in prison wondering what you did wrong. Totalitarianism is on the march, and you are aiding it.

"There are none so blind..."

ATDM wrote: 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.

The title is inherently untrue.
Want me to feel persuaded? Tell the truth. Not the partial truth, the whole truth. Tell me about how easy it would be to amend a law designed to be reporters-only and apply it to the citizens of the USA. Then I understand your point of view and can be alarmed accordingly. Tell me that Feinstein said that the 1st Amendment is a Special Privilege and when I find that it isn't true, I'm going to write the entire thing off as grand-standing and theater. I'll let the sheep forward it around based on title only.

If you're really concerned with our Amendments, why aren't you up in arms about the fact that we can't carry a long gun in public? That right has already been eroded.

EEllis wrote: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.

EEllis wrote:Laws can't remove constitutional rights so what the heck are you guys worried about?

This is so laughable it barely deserves a response. Google EPA takes property. Study how the due process clause has been used to justify all manner of unconstitutional laws, including Obamacare.

EEllis wrote: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.

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?

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.

cb1000rider wrote:
Want me to feel persuaded? Tell the truth. Not the partial truth, the whole truth. Tell me about how easy it would be to amend a law designed to be reporters-only and apply it to the citizens of the USA. Then I understand your point of view and can be alarmed accordingly. Tell me that Feinstein said that the 1st Amendment is a Special Privilege and when I find that it isn't true, I'm going to write the entire thing off as grand-standing and theater. I'll let the sheep forward it around based on title only.

If you're really concerned with our Amendments, why aren't you up in arms about the fact that we can't carry a long gun in public? That right has already been eroded.

Webster's definition of "TITLE": the name given to something (such as a book, song, or movie) to identify or describe it.

The title in question meets the criteria of that definition nicely. If you have your own dictionary that defines English words differently, please reference said dictionary, so that we could all get on the same page about the semantics of it all.

As common sense suggests, a title CANNOT contain the entire message. It may contain an author's opinion, general position, description, etc... Subjective or objective.

As to the long guns issue, that's a whole other story that even likeminded 2nd Amendment supporters can't agree on. So, it warrants an entirely different thread, although I am sure it exists already.

I am and will be "up in arms" about any aspect of the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment stands out, because most of the other rights hinge on it, and ANY legislation about it is BAD. Free speech should not be legislated, period.

And I cannot fathom some people here posting that "it doesn't limit anything", it "provides protection for the media", etc., etc., etc. How blind this is!

ANY LEGISLATION REGARDING THE 1ST AMENDMENT IS BAD, REGARDLESS OF THE VERBIAGE, THE INTENT, OR THE AUTHOR'S IDEOLOGY.

Free speech is already free, what good can they add to it?

Remember: the process of political enslavement is gradual. In the 1930's Germany, people didn't go to bed one night only to wake up the next morning with political arrests, oppression, ghettos, and concentration camps. It took several years, and many of those, who refused to see the true nature of Nazism in the beginning and went along with it, ended up imprisoned or killed, too.

When it comes to free speech, it has its own way of balancing out, without laws. If someone will be an idiot or a bigot and will say something dumb, he or she will endure other types of consequences (e.g. loss of business, friends, etc.). There should be no law against or even protecting reporters, their sources, or regular people. Because the true free speech and free ABSOLUTELY

JALLEN wrote:Why do reporters require protection? From whom?

Why shouldn't reporters be required to appear and testify like anyone else? Why should their speech be more precious than anyone else's?

Well I think they believe that by adding protection for reporters sources it helps insure an active media. The protection isn't absolute of course but it is considered important to most who care about such things. 48 states and the DC have shield laws this establishes one on the Federal level. As to the need it doesn't take long when you think of the treatment the press has been getting from the Justice Dept lately.

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

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?