Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well I just found out Feinswein is trying to give Free Speech a big ole kick in the nuts!


So, Feinstein says the First Amendment is a privilege... I would like to point out to many that I have been scoffed at when I say that if the Second can be infringed upon, so can the First. Others may say, "but Slade, she's talking about a bill that pertains to reporters!" To that I say, "So the .gov can dictate who can and cannot report on government goings on?" That in order to report about the government I have to have a journalism degree and work for an "established" newspaper or broadcast company? An established company whose employee journalists answer to editors that may or may not have a political slant one way or another? An established company (i.e. business) that is often seen as very forgiving to one administration or another? Or perhaps one of these established companies that may or may not even bother to publish a damning report about this senator or that representative, because it doesn't fit the editors or owner's political viewpoint? Is this really to which we want to limit our sources of reporting?
They say this amendment protects the "integrity" of information being reported. No, this is aimed at the slew of small time bloggers and independent journalists who have increased in number over the years. And these little guys do tend to report on the dirty little secrets "they" don't want you to know.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
41,662 Posts
I would normally say a bill such as this would never pass through both Legislatures, be signed by an Executive, and be upheld by the Judiciary. But I've said that before and have been dead wrong. And since we have entered into some sort of hellish caricature of America operated by rabid, snarling dogs, I think it's time to start worrying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,403 Posts
reminds me when I heard Glen Beck going off about 'aproved reporters'
and then...
when you would think this idea is dead, she brings it back, the FEDs have been hitting this HARD, where a 'approved and credentialed' reporter might be able to shield sources
the administration has been going after investigative, blogger and other little guys who don't have a major corporations legal department to reach an 'agreement' (as CBS has shown us, paint the story in a positive light or shut it completely down)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,062 Posts
Something is definitely wrong in the country today but I don't think the people that are twisting all of these things around realize that they themselves may well become the victims of their own laws.
Of course I'm assuming that somehow the "normal" election process still survives and that the possibility of them losing an election still exists. Maybe it's already past that point.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,340 Posts
IMHO all restraints on political speech are unconstitutional, and that includes constraints on funding for being heard. SCOTUS admitted as much but has allowed campaign finance reform laws to stand because there was some supposed crisis that demanded them.

I wonder how the newspapers and Liberal pressure groups who generated that phony "crisis" would feel if their own spending was restrained by law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,678 Posts
I'm assuming that somehow the "normal" election process still survives and that the possibility of them losing an election still exists. Maybe it's already past that point.
Yep Bill... "it's already past that point"... Due to voter fraud, and the fact that 30+ million illegal mexican invaders are allowed to stuff the ballot boxes, we haven't had a valid election for years...
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top