TexasCHLforum.com

It doesn't restrict or effect speech at all. Its only effect adding protection for the press and on what we consider press, by and large is more forgiving than what we would've considered press for the last 50 years. Posting gossip on facebook should not entitle you to extra protection and that is what the issue was.

Granting Special Privilege. Why would the State need to "limit protection" of the "Media Shield Law" to a certain class of people specifically?

Are some peoples "media - blog - speech" more valuable than others? Is there a blogger out there calling these Politicians treasonous pigs? Perhaps these treasonous pigs wish to silence free thinking bloggers against treasonous pigs...

rbwhatever1 wrote:Granting Special Privilege. Why would the State need to "limit protection" of the "Media Shield Law" to a certain class of people specifically?

Are some peoples "media - blog - speech" more valuable than others? Is there a blogger out there calling these Politicians treasonous pigs? Perhaps these treasonous pigs wish to silence free thinking bloggers against treasonous pigs...

Wait you are asking why the Media shield law only applies to media?

If you are a reporter that actually interview people then you would be covered under this law and it doesn't protect you calling someone "treasonous pigs" or anything else. This just allows for things like not revealing sources. It does not need to cover someones nightly facebook post. Alt news sources, drudge, prisonplanet, Legal insurrection, people who write for these sources would be covered.

Senator Feinstein seems more than willing to define things. Assault weapons, for example. Of course, her definition serves her purpose - which she eloquently stated - to take all guns. She was wiling to do it a little at a time, starting with the EBRs.

It is clear that Senator Feinstein and others of her ilk hate Matt Drudge, among others. I'm having problems not seeing him caught up in her definition She might not be able to take out Fox News with her first attempt but if she could take out Drudge, it would be a serious first step.

Once the definition of "journalist" is codified, there will be a second step... and a third. How about if the Senators including Feinstein and Schumer pass a budget? Then we can talk about who the journalists are.

It is fortuitous for her that the Framers of our Constitution understood free speech to be a right rather than a privilege. As such, she has the right to say the many stupidly evil things she says. I also have the right AND the privilege of not giving credence to a word she says.

chasfm11 wrote:Senator Feinstein seems more than willing to define things. Assault weapons, for example. Of course, her definition serves her purpose - which she eloquently stated - to take all guns. She was wiling to do it a little at a time, starting with the EBRs.

It is clear that Senator Feinstein and others of her ilk hate Matt Drudge, among others. I'm having problems not seeing him caught up in her definition She might not be able to take out Fox News with her first attempt but if she could take out Drudge, it would be a serious first step.

Once the definition of "journalist" is codified, there will be a second step... and a third. How about if the Senators including Feinstein and Schumer pass a budget? Then we can talk about who the journalists are.

If I spoke about Feinstein I would most likely violate the board policies so I will refrain but that doesn't mean the facts change. This bill protects reporters, gives them protections that right now they do not have at the federal level so it takes nothing away from nobody. If you don't believe it then read the bill or watch the vid. Drudge would be covered under any and all definitions but your aunt June who like to post recipes on her cooking blog wouldn't. Somehow I think that since no time in the history of our country have we considered the Aunt Junes as media that she won't be covered is acceptable

EEllis wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Granting Special Privilege. Why would the State need to "limit protection" of the "Media Shield Law" to a certain class of people specifically?

Are some peoples "media - blog - speech" more valuable than others? Is there a blogger out there calling these Politicians treasonous pigs? Perhaps these treasonous pigs wish to silence free thinking bloggers against treasonous pigs...

Wait you are asking why the Media shield law only applies to media?

If you are a reporter that actually interview people then you would be covered under this law and it doesn't protect you calling someone "treasonous pigs" or anything else. This just allows for things like not revealing sources. It does not need to cover someones nightly facebook post. Alt news sources, drudge, prisonplanet, Legal insurrection, people who write for these sources would be covered.

Once THEY, the elites, are able to define a thing under the guise of law, then later they can change the definition of that thing, making the definition narrower and narrower. That is how they took gun rights away from citizens in the UK and Australia, bit by bit. You can look away from that or believe that I am being an alarmist to think that way, but I'm not changing my mind. I trust DiFi and her ilk about as far as I could pick them up and throw them.

EEllis wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Senator Feinstein seems more than willing to define things. Assault weapons, for example. Of course, her definition serves her purpose - which she eloquently stated - to take all guns. She was wiling to do it a little at a time, starting with the EBRs.

It is clear that Senator Feinstein and others of her ilk hate Matt Drudge, among others. I'm having problems not seeing him caught up in her definition She might not be able to take out Fox News with her first attempt but if she could take out Drudge, it would be a serious first step.

Once the definition of "journalist" is codified, there will be a second step... and a third. How about if the Senators including Feinstein and Schumer pass a budget? Then we can talk about who the journalists are.

If I spoke about Feinstein I would most likely violate the board policies so I will refrain but that doesn't mean the facts change. This bill protects reporters, gives them protections that right now they do not have at the federal level so it takes nothing away from nobody. If you don't believe it then read the bill or watch the vid. Drudge would be covered under any and all definitions but your aunt June who like to post recipes on her cooking blog wouldn't. Somehow I think that since no time in the history of our country have we considered the Aunt Junes as media that she won't be covered is acceptable

Why can't Aunt June be a "reporter"? Does she have to go to a special "journalist school"? Does she need to work for a large media firm? That is the problem with defining things, is WHO defines them...

K.Mooneyham wrote:
Once THEY, the elites, are able to define a thing under the guise of law, then later they can change the definition of that thing, making the definition narrower and narrower. That is how they took gun rights away from citizens in the UK and Australia, bit by bit. You can look away from that or believe that I am being an alarmist to think that way, but I'm not changing my mind. I trust DiFi and her ilk about as far as I could pick them up and throw them.

Which has nothing to do with this. 48 states have some sort of media shield law. In July a fed appeals court ruled that there was no right to confidentiality for reporters. The White house has been on a tear tracking reporters calls, jailing reporters for not giving sources, but you think that a shield law is big govt trying to make some kind of move? Hate govt all you want but be rational and use some sense. They want to give protection to media but not to some punk kid who tweets about his buddies pulling some crime. Is that so shocking?

K.Mooneyham wrote: Why can't Aunt June be a "reporter"? Does she have to go to a special "journalist school"? Does she need to work for a large media firm? That is the problem with defining things, is WHO defines them...

You don't know? Then what are you complaining about? The links are there so why not find out before complaining? Come on! You don't even know what the definition is that you are going off about! She, Auntie June, doesn't need to go to any school or work for any paper. She just has to practice Journalism. Really the big limitation is that in needs to be an ongoing thing. You don't get it with you first blog post but if you only worked one year out of the last 20 then you're covered.

What about Wikileaks? Will they be protected under this?

EEllis wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: Why can't Aunt June be a "reporter"? Does she have to go to a special "journalist school"? Does she need to work for a large media firm? That is the problem with defining things, is WHO defines them...

You don't know? Then what are you complaining about? The links are there so why not find out before complaining? Come on! You don't even know what the definition is that you are going off about! She, Auntie June, doesn't need to go to any school or work for any paper. She just has to practice Journalism. Really the big limitation is that in needs to be an ongoing thing. You don't get it with you first blog post but if you only worked one year out of the last 20 then you're covered.

I guess this forum really needs a "using smart alec rhetoric" smiley...I promise I'd make good use of it.

EEllis wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:
Once THEY, the elites, are able to define a thing under the guise of law, then later they can change the definition of that thing, making the definition narrower and narrower. That is how they took gun rights away from citizens in the UK and Australia, bit by bit. You can look away from that or believe that I am being an alarmist to think that way, but I'm not changing my mind. I trust DiFi and her ilk about as far as I could pick them up and throw them.

Which has nothing to do with this. 48 states have some sort of media shield law. In July a fed appeals court ruled that there was no right to confidentiality for reporters. The White house has been on a tear tracking reporters calls, jailing reporters for not giving sources, but you think that a shield law is big govt trying to make some kind of move? Hate govt all you want but be rational and use some sense. They want to give protection to media but not to some punk kid who tweets about his buddies pulling some crime. Is that so shocking?

Once again, I don't trust DiFi or any of her crew to do the right thing, ever, on any topic. That woman is pure poison and if her hand is in something, there MUST be something wrong with it, some sinister motive underlying the WHY of it. Talk down to me about it all you want, but that's my story and I'm still sticking with it.

cb1000rider wrote:

ATDM wrote: The title may not be accurate in the specifics, but it is DEFINITELY accurate in its generality.

Why re-post an title that is intentionally misleading if you know better?
I think stuff like this is done by sleaze-bag reporters (on both sides). It gets people to click and look at the coverage. Of course, many sheep just take the title on face value and push it across the internet.
It's no different than a car dealer advertising something that isn't available to get people into the dealership. It's about that ethical.

Boy are you wrong. Watch the video. She calls reporting "a special privilege". The purpose of the amendment is to deny bloggers (and she gets to define what that means so she can exclude places like Breitbart.com) the protections of the first amendment when they write on their blogs. And who is supporting the bill? "Legitimate" news organizations. This is a blatant attempt to stomp out the competition by rewriting the Constitution.

Since when did writing stories, true or false, become a special privilege? Since when did the First Amendment contain a clause that reads, "You can only write stories if you have the proper credentials as determined by the leviathan?

She complains that Nazi hate sites would be protected by the law. So what? Since when was America a place where the content of your speech determines whether or not you have the right to speak at all?

ADTM is spot on. The title is spot on. Your criticism is naive and foolhardy. As ADTM points out, the frog is in the water. All that is required is to turn up the heat.

"Shall not be infringed..."
What a bridge troll