The languishing legislation was given new life by the Obama
administration. Under fire for what many consider its overly zealous leak investigations, the
administration last spring asked Schumer to reintroduce the shield bill.
Adding to the momentum was a federal appeals court ruling in July concluding
that journalists had no right to keep their sources secret during
criminal prosecutions.
‘Disgusting’: Matt Drudge Blasts Senator Feinstein for ...
www.theblaze.com/ stories/ 2013/ 09/ 14/ disgusting-matt-drudge-blasts-senator-feinstein-for-trying-to-define- journalist/ - Proxy- HighlightInternet news pioneer Matt Drudge on Friday issued a scathing criticism of a Senate bill that will provide a narrow definition of the term journalist.
Media Shield
Law Heralds the Death of the 1st Amendment
By Onan Coca / 16 September 2013Congress 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.
The Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a new “media shield” bill, and will now ask the Senate to take the bill up for a vote. In the wake of the Justice Department’s recent attacks on the freedom of the press, many members of Congress seem ready to take up the cause and support the media shield law. At first glance a new media shield law would be a positive development, because it would imply that our Congress took our press freedom seriously. However, that is just not the case. This media shield law is not just a bad idea, but a dangerous one.
Let’s begin with the
most basic argument against the media shield law. It is unnecessary because the
Bill of Rights offers us complete coverage on freedom of the press. “Congress
shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.” It doesn’t get
much clearer than that. So the real issue here is not that we need a media
shield law (we already have the 1st Amendment), but that someone at
the Justice Department needs to go to prison for their roles in the AP scandal and in the Fox News
and James Rosen case. The likely jailbird should be Attorney General Eric
Holder, because he signed off on both investigations. In addition, the Justice
Department should have to pay hefty restitution to both organizations for their
heavy handed attack on free speech.
The first argument was easy – we already have a media shield in the First Amendment and
the real problem is that the Justice Department broke the law, so they should
be punished. But the next argument gets a little more nuanced.
The second argument
here is that by allowing Congress to pass a media shield law we are allowing
them to decide who is a journalist. Congress will not pass a bill that gives
blanket protection to any Tom, Dick, or Harry’s free speech or press freedom.
Their concern is that someone blogging out of their mom’s basement will get a
hold of classified information, publish it and then be covered by the media
shield law… and Congress just cannot risk any more Edward Snowdens. So in the
bill that has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, they have drawn lines to show who is and isn’t a “real”
journalist. An example – an 80 year
old retired English teacher working for a small town newspaper (or newsletter)
is a journalist… but Matt Drudge who publishes the Drudge Report and is read by
millions may not be covered. A reporter with a college paper may be covered,
but one of the writers for this site might not be.
This begs the question…
where is Congress given the authority to decide who is and isn’t a journalist?
The answer is, that Congress has no say in that question whatsoever – because
the 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom
of speech, or of the press. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. In fact, the
1st Amendment strictly prohibits Congress doing anything to draw
lines on free speech or press freedom. The very notion of passing a media
shield law that applies only to some is Congress doing exactly what the First
Amendment says it CANNOT do.
3 comments:
Maybe it's time for us to support the government in pushing for their Control with new legislation, however, we push it to the Extreme that would Approve it as is, but then when it is Enacted it would come back on them, as the Only way to Survive is to be a Nudist that is Homeless in the Desert, or you go to Prison!
Someone should write legislation as such;
“We The People Approve that ANYTHING that has been used in an Assault or Murder in ANY State in the last 50 years can be considered as a Weapon and Can be Confiscated by ANY Law Enforcement Official at ANY Time!”
Now, it would be Illegal to be a Professional Athlete, a vehicle driver, a nun, priest, pastor or even law enforcement or government official as any item they use at one time or another has been used in an Assault or Murder, so thus No One is EXEMPT!
If more and more Christians would be Arrested as their Bibles or cross pins could be considered as a weapon then it would be good for them to BAN ALL Christians Altogether from being on the streets.
These turn coat criminal cabal traitors continue to expose themselves for what they really are and arrogant enough to think that they can continue with their sick twisted agendas, but their time is running out and running out fast. They are getting enough rope to hang themselves when the time comes and it is coming.
The problem is that we are not 'under the Constitution' and haven't been for centuries. We are totally controlled by the 'Corporation' in DC and have NO RIGHTS! Thinking we are free people is our problem. We need to wake up to the fact now before it is too late.
Post a Comment