Dems Threaten Bloggers

[longknife]

She isn't content to just go after guns. Now Feinstein is leading the charge to have a system to license journalists!

Her Orwellian titled “Free Flow of Information Act of 2013”, which is also known as the “media shield bill” has passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is expected to gain the votes necessary to get out of the Senate. Proponents of the bill, are advocating that journalists be licensed by the federal government so that they can be protected from potential prosecution from a government insisting that their confidential sources be revealed.

S. 987 Can be found @ https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s987/text [which credits Schumer as the sponsor!]

So, I read the thing and it doesn't seem to contain the wording attributed to Ms Diane. I then followed the link to NetRight Daily» War on Bloggers Escalates which was basically quoted by the original blogger.

I called out the first blogger with a comment and am going to watch to see how he responds.

What do you have on this?

 

[OriginalShroom]

While this is not a "Licensing" bill, did you actually see what it takes to become a "protected Journalist"?

Ben Franklin would not have been covered under this.

 

[Edgetho]

Actually.....

I think it's an idea that needs to be discussed.

It would be nice if the 4th Estate had some semblance of professionalism for a change.

I'm neither for it nor against it at this point

But I will tell you this much..... If we let dimocraps decide....... If we let dimocraps write the rules...... If we give them control over the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM......

They'll fuck it up. They always have, they always will.

Always do

 

[francoHFW]

Everyone in the world BUT hater dupes know the liars, cheats, and hypocrites are in the Pub Propaganda Machine. Quite an alternate universe you got there...lol

 

[g5000]

S. 987 Can be found @ https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s987/text [which credits Schumer as the sponsor!]

So, I read the thing and it doesn't seem to contain the wording attributed to Ms Diane.

I think you have misunderstood. It is not being claimed that Feinstein supports this bill. She actually does not like it. She believes Schumer's bill would "provide special privilege to those who are not reporters at all."

She wants more restrictive language than Schumer's bill so that those she does not think are reporters are not protected.

 

[g5000]

Ben Franklin would not have been covered under this.

Excellent summation!

 

[g5000]

For those who think the contentiousness and lies and hypocrisy of our press has gotten out of hand, I would suggest reading the press reports of early 19th century America. Our modern media pales in comparison.

As for Ms. Feinstein or anyone who gives even a thought to censorship of our press, I say you are un-American.

If anyone could point out an intermediate and yet a tenable position between the complete independence and the entire servitude of opinion, I should perhaps be inclined to adopt it, but the difficulty is to discover this intermediate position. Intending to correct the licentiousness of the press and to restore the use of orderly language, you first try the offender by a jury; but if the jury acquits him, the opinion which was that of a single individual becomes the opinion of the whole country. Too much and too little has therefore been done; go farther, then. You bring the delinquent before permanent magistrates; but even here the cause must be heard before it can be decided; and the very principles which no book would have ventured to avow are blazoned forth in the pleadings, and what was obscurely hinted at in a single composition is thus repeated in a multitude of other publications. The language is only the expression and, if I may so speak, the body of the thought, but it is not the thought itself. Tribunals may condemn the body, but the sense, the spirit of the work is too subtle for their authority. Too much has still been done to recede, too little to attain your end; you must go still farther. Establish a censorship of the press. But the tongue of the public speaker will still make itself heard, and your purpose is not yet accomplished; you have only increased the mischief. Thought is not, like physical strength, dependent upon the number of its agents; nor can authors be counted like the troops that compose an army. On the contrary, the authority of a principle is often increased by the small number of men by whom it is expressed. The words of one strong-minded man addressed to the passions of a listening assembly have more power than the vociferations of a thousand orators; and if it be allowed to speak freely in any one public place, the consequence is the same as if free speaking was allowed in every village. The liberty of speech must therefore be destroyed as well as the liberty of the press. And now you have succeeded, everybody is reduced to silence. But your object was to repress the abuses of liberty, and you are brought to the feet of a despot. You have been led from the extreme of independence to the extreme of servitude without finding a single tenable position on the way at which you could stop.

In America there is scarcely a hamlet that has not its newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither discipline nor unity of action can be established among so many combatants, and each one consequently fights under his own standard. All the political journals of the United States are, indeed, arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways. They cannot form those great currents of opinion which sweep away the strongest dikes. This division of the influence of the press produces other consequences scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which newspapers can be established produces a multitude of them; but as the competition prevents any considerable profit, persons of much capacity are rarely led to engage in these undertakings. Such is the number of the public prints that even if they were a source of wealth, writers of ability could not be found to direct them all. The journalists of the United States are generally in a very humble position, with a scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of the majority is the most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits to which everyone must then conform; the aggregate of these common habits is what is called the class spirit (esprit de corps) of each profession; thus there is the class spirit of the bar, of the court, etc. The class spirit of the French journalists consists in a violent but frequently an eloquent and lofty manner of discussing the great interests of the state, and the exceptions to this mode of writing are only occasional. The characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of his readers; he abandons principles to assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life and disclose all their weaknesses and vices.

Written in 1833.

Nothing has changed. And that is a GOOD thing.

 

[Yurt]

Everyone in the world BUT hater dupes know the liars, cheats, and hypocrites are in the Pub Propaganda Machine. Quite an alternate universe you got there...lol

does this psychobabble mean you support the bill?

i don't support this bill because it creates a federal class of journalists. to require a license to be a "covered journalist" is wholly against the founding fathers idea of freedom of the press. with the license can easily come abuse from the federal government....all of a sudden they can remove your license and you're no longer a covered journalist.

 

[Edgetho]

Ben Franklin would not have been covered under this.

Excellent summation!

Ben Franklin couldn't legally operate an Automobile in today's America either.

What the FUCK is your point?

idiot.

You people aren't funny. You're not clever, cute or entertaining. You're not George Carlin. You're not even Bill Maher or Jon Stewart.

You're just assholes

ETA:
My scorn wasn't aimed at shroom. It was aimed at people who do drive-by posts, thinking they're cute and clever and just oh so cryptic and if we were just bright enough we'd get it too.

How about telling us WHY you think it was such an 'excellent summation' genius.

This is why I'm so fucking mean. dimocraps are such children

 

[Yurt]

Ben Franklin would not have been covered under this.

Excellent summation!

Ben Franklin couldn't legally operate an Automobile in today's America either.

What the FUCK is your point?

idiot.

You people aren't funny. You're not clever, cute or entertaining. You're not George Carlin. You're not even Bill Maher or Jon Stewart.

You're just assholes

of course franklin could operate a vehicle...take the test like everyone else

calm down....lol

 

[Edgetho]

For those who think the contentiousness and lies and hypocrisy of our press has gotten out of hand, I would suggest reading the press reports of early 19th century America. Our modern media pales in comparison.

As for Ms. Feinstein or anyone who gives even a thought to censorship of our press, I say you are un-American.

If anyone could point out an intermediate and yet a tenable position between the complete independence and the entire servitude of opinion, I should perhaps be inclined to adopt it, but the difficulty is to discover this intermediate position. Intending to correct the licentiousness of the press and to restore the use of orderly language, you first try the offender by a jury; but if the jury acquits him, the opinion which was that of a single individual becomes the opinion of the whole country. Too much and too little has therefore been done; go farther, then. You bring the delinquent before permanent magistrates; but even here the cause must be heard before it can be decided; and the very principles which no book would have ventured to avow are blazoned forth in the pleadings, and what was obscurely hinted at in a single composition is thus repeated in a multitude of other publications. The language is only the expression and, if I may so speak, the body of the thought, but it is not the thought itself. Tribunals may condemn the body, but the sense, the spirit of the work is too subtle for their authority. Too much has still been done to recede, too little to attain your end; you must go still farther. Establish a censorship of the press. But the tongue of the public speaker will still make itself heard, and your purpose is not yet accomplished; you have only increased the mischief. Thought is not, like physical strength, dependent upon the number of its agents; nor can authors be counted like the troops that compose an army. On the contrary, the authority of a principle is often increased by the small number of men by whom it is expressed. The words of one strong-minded man addressed to the passions of a listening assembly have more power than the vociferations of a thousand orators; and if it be allowed to speak freely in any one public place, the consequence is the same as if free speaking was allowed in every village. The liberty of speech must therefore be destroyed as well as the liberty of the press. And now you have succeeded, everybody is reduced to silence. But your object was to repress the abuses of liberty, and you are brought to the feet of a despot. You have been led from the extreme of independence to the extreme of servitude without finding a single tenable position on the way at which you could stop.

In America there is scarcely a hamlet that has not its newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither discipline nor unity of action can be established among so many combatants, and each one consequently fights under his own standard. All the political journals of the United States are, indeed, arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways. They cannot form those great currents of opinion which sweep away the strongest dikes. This division of the influence of the press produces other consequences scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which newspapers can be established produces a multitude of them; but as the competition prevents any considerable profit, persons of much capacity are rarely led to engage in these undertakings. Such is the number of the public prints that even if they were a source of wealth, writers of ability could not be found to direct them all. The journalists of the United States are generally in a very humble position, with a scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of the majority is the most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits to which everyone must then conform; the aggregate of these common habits is what is called the class spirit (esprit de corps) of each profession; thus there is the class spirit of the bar, of the court, etc. The class spirit of the French journalists consists in a violent but frequently an eloquent and lofty manner of discussing the great interests of the state, and the exceptions to this mode of writing are only occasional. The characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of his readers; he abandons principles to assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life and disclose all their weaknesses and vices.

Written in 1833.

Nothing has changed. And that is a GOOD thing.

EVERYthing has changed.

In 1833, every burg, every hamlet and every village, town and city had its own press.

Sometimes, many. As in.... Really a lot.

One might be totally and completely democrat, two others might be totally Republican and a couple more might be neutral.

People had a choice of reading material.

Today, our press is a monolith.

I could provide you with manuscripts from tonight's Nightly News and bet you everything you own (I could use a case of Stroh's) that you couldn't tell me which Network produced them.

No way.

You might get ONE right -- FNC

But CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, pMSNBC, PBS.......

You couldn't tell the difference if your life depended on it.

I'm three times as intelligent as you are and there is NO way I could tell the difference.

THEY ALL SOUND THE SAME.

They all talk about the same shit. Today it's Chris Christie day. It's on every Network. Same shit, different talking head

You refuse to believe what is plain to anybody with an IQ ......

The Main Stream Media is Monolithic and unrepresentative of ALL the people of the United States.

They, like you and other dimocrap scum, only want to hear what they already believe.

They're NOT Journalists. They're Advocates.

90% of them for radical left ideas.

 

[Londoner]

The Bill was first introduced by Republican Senator R.Lugar and Dem C.Dodd, and had the support of Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain (along with a host of other Republican senators).

The Rightwing blogosphere is now making it seem like the Orwellian name was chosen by Feinstein, who, they falsely imply, is the Bill's soul author.

In other words, these Blogs are lying for the sole purpose of fighting a political war against the democrats.

This is why they don't deserve the protections of actual journalists - because these kinds of people routinely lie about sources. The lie, they cherry pick and they distort in order to destroy their political enemies. They are Trotskyites. They are Leninists because they believe that lying is justified when it serves a noble cause.

They are dangerous. They are vermin.

Here is the real question. Did the OP read the original bill proposed by Lugar? Does he know the full context of the Bill and why McCain supported it? Or does he just cut and paste blog propaganda?

 

[Yurt]

The Bill was first introduced by Republican Senator R.Lugar and Dem C.Dodd, and had the support of Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain (along with a host of other Republican senators).

The Rightwing blogosphere is now making it seem like the Orwellian name was chosen by Feinstein, who, they falsely imply, is the Bill's soul author.

In other words, these Blogs are lying for the sole purpose of fighting a political war against the democrats.

This is why they don't deserve the protections of actual journalists - because these kinds of people routinely lie about sources. The lie, they cherry pick and they distort in order to destroy their political enemies. They are Trotskyites. They are Leninists because they believe that lying is justified when it serves a noble cause.

They are dangerous. They are vermin.

Here is the real question. Did the OP read the original bill proposed by Lugar? Does he know the full context of the Bill and why McCain supported it? Or does he just cut and paste blog propaganda?

lies (with very few exceptions, like false ads) are protected speech under the 1st amendment asswipe

 

[Edgetho]

The Bill was first introduced by Republican Senator R.Lugar and Dem C.Dodd, and had the support of Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain (along with a host of other Republican senators).

The Rightwing blogosphere is now making it seem like the Orwellian name was chosen by Feinstein, who, they falsely imply, is the Bill's soul author.

In other words, these Blogs are lying for the sole purpose of fighting a political war against the democrats.

This is why they don't deserve the protections of actual journalists - because these kinds of people routinely lie about sources. The lie, they cherry pick and they distort in order to destroy their political enemies. They are Trotskyites. They are Leninists because they believe that lying is justified when it serves a noble cause.

They are dangerous. They are vermin.

Here is the real question. Did the OP read the original bill proposed by Lugar? Does he know the full context of the Bill and why McCain supported it? Or does he just cut and paste blog propaganda?

Wow.... You just shit words out of fingers and expect us to believe because of their sheer volume?

Think about this for a minute..... Right Wingers?

Richard Lugar was primaried by his OWN party -- Republican, and lost.

He's a real Right Winger, huh genius?

John McRINO? A Right Winger? That old fucking, senile fossil is a disgrace to Veterans and Patriots everywhere.

Plus, he's demented.

A Senator Conservatives call 'McRINO' is a Right Winger, huh.

And you? Accusing ANYBODY of being a Trotskyite or a Leninist? Coming form the side of the political spectrum that IDOLIZES those scum?

That's funny.

You people need to pay for your lies.

That's what this is about.

Is lying protected by the 1st Amendment?

SHOULD lying be protected by the 1st Amendment?

If so, does the Press still deserve it's special exemptions and immunities from prosecution for doing what the rest of us would go to prison for life if we did it?

Was the Constitution designed to protect and preserve a Nation of liars?

Where nothing but winning matters? Where truth is an arbitrary matter to be hashed out by egghead scholars while The People Of The United States are continuously lied to by a dishonest and wholly political media?

I disagree with that concept.

I believe that once an entity, in this case, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM, has shown iself to be nothing more than an advocate for a certain cause, a certain principle, then it is no loner part of the Media and has become nothing more than an advertising firm.

IMO, it should lose it's special Constitutional Privileges, protections and immunities.

YMMV, but I'm right.

I always am

 

[RoadVirus]

Everyone in the world BUT hater dupes know the liars, cheats, and hypocrites are in the Pub Propaganda Machine. Quite an alternate universe you got there...lol

MSNBC is part of the "Republican propaganda machine"? I had no idea.

 

[Howey]

What do you have on this?

Ummm...I think you got this backasswards...Bloggers are as deserving of these rights as journalists.

But that's ok...keep up with the paranioa and fear mongering.

Once your hero The Pootin takes over there'll be no freedom of the press whatsoever.