Dem Senator Durbin: Not Sure Bloggers Should Be Protected By First Amendment

[Lovebears65]

Dem Senator Durbin: Not Sure Bloggers Should Be Protected By First Amendment | Independent Journal Review

Does this mean we should also worry about what we say. I am pretty sure when the founding fathers said Freedom of speech it was for everyone.. Not a select few

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Continue to blog and if they arrest you for it challenge them in court. That is the answer to that one.

-Jeri

 

[JakeStarkey]

The senator is wrong, period. Libel laws are in effect if a party believes they have been wrongly injured by a blogger. Anonymity is not a defense to the charge, and a blog site is not a cover for illegal activity.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Of course it isn't. I believe we are addressing freedom of speech here and the Constitution. Are we not? Read the article and tell me, Starkey. - Jeri

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, freedom of speech is the issue, but the 1st does not protect deliberate libel. I do imagine most courts will lean to the side of the writer and not the offended.

 

[Mad Scientist]

American Senator "not sure" if blogging is Protected Speech. You can't make this up.

If I submitted a script to Hollywood about a US Senator who thought the same thing it would be rejected. "No one is gonna' believe a duly elected Senator doesn't understand the Constitution.

 

[Staidhup]

One fact remains, they stick to the script while everyone else sleeps. Just one more unfounded interpretation of the constitution designed to suspend the freedom of speech and expression of opinion. One can only hope that this nightmare will end soon.

 

[sfcalifornia]

He's talking about shield laws and whether a blogger has a right to protect their sources. A blogger or a tweeter are not necessarily journalists. Thanks for the hysteria FoxNews et al.

 

[theHawk]

Dem Senator Durbin: Not Sure Bloggers Should Be Protected By First Amendment | Independent Journal Review

Does this mean we should also worry about what we say. I am pretty sure when the founding fathers said Freedom of speech it was for everyone.. Not a select few

Durbin: making communists proud the world over.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A blogger or a tweeter are not necessarily journalists.

Neither are a lot of journalists these days.

 

[Kondor3]

You expected something different from the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Illinois?

 

[Google]

Continue to blog and if they arrest you for it challenge them in court. That is the answer to that one.

-Jeri

Oh yes, bloggers fear not. Just challenge the federal government in federal court, what could possibly go wrong?

How about not letting it get to that point and enforcing the Constitution, which would never allow such disregard of the right of American citizens.

WTF is wrong with people?

 

[BlindBoo]

On the surface I disagree with the Senator however in all fairness a 90 second clip doesn't do justice to the topic of a shield law and all.

 

[OriginalShroom]

OK...

What is the difference between a blogger who happens to get some knowledge that is embarrassing to the country and what the Wikileaks Assange did and getting all that info from Bradley Manning?

Would you only have the soldier prosecuted and not Assange?


There is no doubt that Manning broke many different laws.

Then remember how the left came to the defense of the couple that "accidently" recorded Newt's and Boehner's phone call and shopped it around.

But then they also attacked Luciene Goldberg for her releases over the Clinton/Monica issue, but defended the nameless Pentagon employee who released Linda Tripp's personnel files.

 

[FA_Q2]

He's talking about shield laws and whether a blogger has a right to protect their sources. A blogger or a tweeter are not necessarily journalists. Thanks for the hysteria FoxNews et al.

Why? What makes a journalist a journalist?

I believe that to remove bloggers (or anyone that is acting in a ‘journalistic’ capacity) from the protections of the first amendment is a terrible violation of the first. There is no reason that a blogger is any different than any other news source, other than credibility of course.

Who is the one that decides who is a ‘journalist’ then? Are we ready to give the government the power to simply declare that one person or another simply is not afforded first amendment protections anymore? Do others not see why that is such a bad idea?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Come back to the point: bloggers who lie.

Laws exist to punish libel.

No problem. Let the injured sue.

 

[FA_Q2]

Come back to the point: bloggers who lie.

Laws exist to punish libel.

No problem. Let the injured sue.

?

When was that the point?

The point was whether or not bloggers maintained first amendment protections. There was a direct stamen pertaining to media shield law as well. You are the only one that is talking about libel here. The libel is not in question; everyone knows that is illegal and no one really has a problem with suing for libel. What some do have a problem with is a senator trying to not include a subset of people under those constitutional protections.

 

[bodecea]

Continue to blog and if they arrest you for it challenge them in court. That is the answer to that one.

-Jeri

I agree on that point. Of course they are covered. Duh.

 

[OriginalShroom]

This isn't about having the right to speak.. That is a non-starter.

This is about a Journalistic Shield law that prevents "Journalists" from being arrested for what they "Report" as long as they can claim that the story is in the public's interest to know.

 

[bripat9643]

Dem Senator Durbin: Not Sure Bloggers Should Be Protected By First Amendment | Independent Journal Review

Does this mean we should also worry about what we say. I am pretty sure when the founding fathers said Freedom of speech it was for everyone.. Not a select few

Does anyone need more proof that at heart Democrats are all basically fascists?