Feinstein at it again, this time attacking the 1st Amendment

ThesNazud · September 16, 2013, 12:36 PM

This time in an apparent attack on the 1st Amendmemt...

http://benswann.com/senate-bill-attempts-to-make-the-right-of-free-press-a-privilege

Ok, one can make an argument why even with her 2A stance she has stayed and elected official. However I now ask in earnest... HOW???

This is to me nothing less than the first step to government media. Seriously, how has govt run media in the past been a good idea? It bothers me on a fundamental level that they can say, 'Your not a real journalist' or even tell(for example here only) Tom Brokaw that his confidential source is no longer confidential because they believe it is terrorist related...

**Aguila Blanca** · September 16, 2013, 01:37 PM

Feinstein is more of an antique than I am. The dawning of the electronic age and the birth of the Internet changed forever the concept of what a "journalist" is. Senator Feinstein just doesn't get it.

Today's blog is tomorrow's Drudge Report. Beyond that, her example of Snowden makes zero sense. Snowden doesn't have confidential sources to protect; Snowden IS (or was) the source for at least two other "journalists."

TXAZ · September 16, 2013, 02:07 PM

It's all political. She's trying to tilt the tables away from First Amendment protections for people that point out problems with the government and blog about it. Not going to pass.

**Tom Servo** · September 16, 2013, 03:26 PM

From the article:

Quote:

Senator Charles Schumer says that this bill “balances the need for national security with that of a free press.”

I wasn't aware there was a need for such a "balance." I find the very idea unsettling.

In a just and free society, there shouldn't be a need to "balance" freedom of the press with national security. Sure, some things need to be kept secret, such as nuclear launch codes, but those should be exceptions rather than the rule.

It doesn't surprise me that Feinstein and Schumer want to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights as privileges. They've done that with another important civil liberty for years.

(Has anyone found a bill number for this?)

**tyme** · September 16, 2013, 05:37 PM

S.987. Free Flow of Information Act of 2013, introduced by Schumer and Graham.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.987:

dakota.potts · September 16, 2013, 05:45 PM

Isn't it ironic that they always name them the opposite of what they are?

The reduce gun violence act

The free flow of information act

The SAFE act

And a couple others that aren't kosher for this board

KyJim · September 16, 2013, 08:49 PM

The bill is a special shield law protecting reporters, however defined, from laws of general applicability; e.g., more difficult to subpoena certain information, etc. Therefore, the bill does indeed give reporters certain privileges that are not protected under the First Amendment. The bill's privileges should not be extended to every keyboard jockey on the Internet. They can still claim First Amendment protection when it is appropriate to do so.

JASmith · September 16, 2013, 09:15 PM

I have started asking politicians to define where they stand with respect to the Bill of Rights.

Would you believe neither the Tea Party nor my congressman have deigned to respond to what should be a knee-jerk question?

I got started on this path because I finally made the connection that almost all of the noise is about the 2nd Amendment, yet ALL of the amendments are under severe pressure, as we see here.

We may need to start a campaign for a Bill of Rights Protection litmus test. Clearly, swearing to defend and support the Constitution has become inadequate.

MLeake · September 16, 2013, 10:35 PM

KyJim, under the proposals I saw, such "keyboard jockeys" as Matt Drudge (higher readership than most newspapers) would not necessarily qualify.

Crazy88Fingers · September 17, 2013, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Senator Charles Schumer says that this bill “balances the need for national security with that of a free press.”

Tom, that quote jumped out at me too. Apparently all the government has to do is cry "terrorism" and it can do whatever it wants.

Funny, I don't feel much more secure with these "balances". But then I don't think "national security" is about protecting you and me anymore.

rebs · September 17, 2013, 07:03 AM

Your right National Security is being used as a crutch to help diminish our rights. All the money sent to other countries that actually hate the USA and there is no money to take care of the homeless problem right here. The current politicians need a lesson on representing the people that elected them and stop being the self serving politicians they have become.

nate45 · September 17, 2013, 08:25 PM

Same Senator that wants to limit the Second Amendment to official state militias, wants to limit the First Amendment to official state journalists. Hard to figure? Not really.

**Aguila Blanca** · September 17, 2013, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASmith

I got started on this path because I finally made the connection that almost all of the noise is about the 2nd Amendment, yet ALL of the amendments are under severe pressure, as we see here.

Based on the Boston bomber search, the searches and seizures in Nawlins during Katrina, the search for the ex-Navy guy/ex-cop who turned killer in California (Doner?), and the almost explosive proliferation of no-knock, dynamic entry warrant "services, I'd say the Fourth Amendment is in some serious difficulty these days, as well.

KyJim · September 18, 2013, 08:51 PM

Quote:

KyJim, under the proposals I saw, such "keyboard jockeys" as Matt Drudge (higher readership than most newspapers) would not necessarily qualify.

I'm a frequent visitor to the his site but he actually writes about one story a year. Of course, when it involves a president and a stained dress, it only takes one.

SamNavy · September 19, 2013, 07:44 AM

So when is the press itself going to wake up? Surely most reporters have seen "V for Vendetta" at least once?

jimbob86 · September 19, 2013, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Senator Charles Schumer says that this bill “balances the need for national security with that of a free press.”

Mr. Schumer is willing to trade some of our Liberty for temporay security.

Benjamin Franklin would say he deserves neither.

I concur.

Dan F · September 20, 2013, 06:00 PM

Dakota...

Straight out of "1984", antonymous doublethink.

A scary book when I first read it, growing more scary every time I see parts of it show up in reality.

TDL · September 23, 2013, 09:01 PM

Quote:

So when is the press itself going to wake up? Surely most reporters have seen "V for Vendetta" at least once?

Sadly a lot of reporters are complicit in this. The fulcrum on this issue is who gets shielded. Quite a few reporters understand the problem. But anyprofession, and especially one undergoing the disruption seen in the reporting business -- is always tempted to fall back into guild like protections. In much of the world, including countries with "high" freedom of the press scores, professional accreditation by a government agency or union was until recently accepted as benign.

This is the inherent problem with shield laws.

September 16, 2013, 12:36 PM	#1
ThesNazud Member Join Date: June 3, 2013 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 98	Feinstein at it again, this time attacking the 1st Amendment This time in an apparent attack on the 1st Amendmemt... http://benswann.com/senate-bill-attempts-to-make-the-right-of-free-press-a-privilege Ok, one can make an argument why even with her 2A stance she has stayed and elected official. However I now ask in earnest... HOW??? This is to me nothing less than the first step to government media. Seriously, how has govt run media in the past been a good idea? It bothers me on a fundamental level that they can say, 'Your not a real journalist' or even tell(for example here only) Tom Brokaw that his confidential source is no longer confidential because they believe it is terrorist related... Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; September 16, 2013 at 01:39 PM.

September 16, 2013, 02:07 PM	#3
TXAZ Senior Member Join Date: September 5, 2010 Location: McMurdo Sound Texas Posts: 4,322	It's all political. She's trying to tilt the tables away from First Amendment protections for people that point out problems with the government and blog about it. Not going to pass. __________________ Cave illos in guns et backhoes

September 16, 2013, 05:37 PM	#5
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 3,355	S.987. Free Flow of Information Act of 2013, introduced by Schumer and Graham. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.987: __________________ “The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

September 16, 2013, 09:15 PM	#8
JASmith Senior Member Join Date: September 27, 2009 Posts: 157	I have started asking politicians to define where they stand with respect to the Bill of Rights. Would you believe neither the Tea Party nor my congressman have deigned to respond to what should be a knee-jerk question? I got started on this path because I finally made the connection that almost all of the noise is about the 2nd Amendment, yet ALL of the amendments are under severe pressure, as we see here. We may need to start a campaign for a Bill of Rights Protection litmus test. Clearly, swearing to defend and support the Constitution has become inadequate. __________________ Nevermore... http://shootersnotes.com

September 17, 2013, 08:25 PM	#12
nate45 Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2007 Location: Illinois Posts: 3,746	Same Senator that wants to limit the Second Amendment to official state militias, wants to limit the First Amendment to official state journalists. Hard to figure? Not really. __________________ "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<)

September 16, 2013, 01:37 PM	#2
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	Feinstein is more of an antique than I am. The dawning of the electronic age and the birth of the Internet changed forever the concept of what a "journalist" is. Senator Feinstein just doesn't get it. Today's blog is tomorrow's Drudge Report. Beyond that, her example of Snowden makes zero sense. Snowden doesn't have confidential sources to protect; Snowden IS (or was) the source for at least two other "journalists."

September 16, 2013, 05:45 PM	#6
dakota.potts Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2013 Location: Keystone Heights, Florida Posts: 3,084	Isn't it ironic that they always name them the opposite of what they are? The reduce gun violence act The free flow of information act The SAFE act And a couple others that aren't kosher for this board

September 16, 2013, 08:49 PM	#7
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	The bill is a special shield law protecting reporters, however defined, from laws of general applicability; e.g., more difficult to subpoena certain information, etc. Therefore, the bill does indeed give reporters certain privileges that are not protected under the First Amendment. The bill's privileges should not be extended to every keyboard jockey on the Internet. They can still claim First Amendment protection when it is appropriate to do so.

September 16, 2013, 10:35 PM	#9
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	KyJim, under the proposals I saw, such "keyboard jockeys" as Matt Drudge (higher readership than most newspapers) would not necessarily qualify.

September 17, 2013, 07:03 AM	#11
rebs Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 3,881	Your right National Security is being used as a crutch to help diminish our rights. All the money sent to other countries that actually hate the USA and there is no money to take care of the homeless problem right here. The current politicians need a lesson on representing the people that elected them and stop being the self serving politicians they have become.

September 19, 2013, 07:44 AM	#15
SamNavy Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2011 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 433	So when is the press itself going to wake up? Surely most reporters have seen "V for Vendetta" at least once?

September 20, 2013, 06:00 PM	#17
Dan F Member Join Date: July 13, 2011 Location: MD gah Posts: 57	Dakota... Straight out of "1984", antonymous doublethink. A scary book when I first read it, growing more scary every time I see parts of it show up in reality.