General Discussion

woo me with science

(32,139 posts) Fri Sep 20, 2013, 01:49 PM Sep 2013

So now we're expected to have serious "debates" about whether journalists need to be approved [View all]

by the government of the United States of America?

Please don't feed the trolls.

172 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So now we're expected to have serious "debates" about whether journalists need to be approved [View all] woo me with science Sep 2013 OP

Unfortunately, Feinstein and Durbin have pushed a Bill that would do just that. So, we need to leveymg Sep 2013 #1

There is no debate here. woo me with science Sep 2013 #3

+1000 TeamPooka Sep 2013 #5

+1 Why not a 'thoughtful discussion' on starvation? leftstreet Sep 2013 #6

+1000000 woo me with science Sep 2013 #7

Most clueless post of the day: geek tragedy Sep 2013 #14

Unlike you, we recognize the difference between denouncing ideas and stomping on heads. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #16

Denouncing journalist shield laws is something only geek tragedy Sep 2013 #17

Shields already exists. We denounce the limiting of the shield to a few officially recognized Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #22

The law only serves to enshrine a dying media it's place as the official stenographer...nt Jesus Malverde Sep 2013 #40

So, the ACLU and RCFP are fascist enablers who need to be set straight by the oracles geek tragedy Sep 2013 #63

Bloggers and DU posters are not journalists. Jenoch Sep 2013 #72

49 states have shield laws or court precedents and there are Supreme Court precedents. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #78

I guess it depends on the circumstances. Jenoch Sep 2013 #92

Defaming & unsubstantiated claims covered by other laws. This law covers different angle. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #96

You are correct, but that's the kind of crap Jenoch Sep 2013 #141

Like "Brietbart" or "The Peoples View" ? bvar22 Sep 2013 #154

Sites like Breitbart and Huffongton Post Jenoch Sep 2013 #158

The shield does NOT already exist. Also, posting at DU isn't fucking journalism. nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #106

49 states have shield laws or court precedents and there are Supreme Court precedents. Fucking aside Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #113

But the blathering idiots on Fox News are practicing "jounalism" ??? hunter Sep 2013 #119

Not when the vast majority of the journalists protected by said "shield law" are owned by Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #105

Every legal privilege requires the person asserting it to establish that geek tragedy Sep 2013 #107

1) Free speech & press is a right, not a privilege. 2) Yes, have to establish citizenship ... Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #116

We're debating a legal privilege here, not something considered a right geek tragedy Sep 2013 #127

Amendment 1: The right to a Free Press is restricted by restricting the definition of journalist. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #129

How else would one claim privilege from a federal investigation geek tragedy Sep 2013 #131

By being an operative of a mega-media corporation. Duh. Read the bill. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #133

We're not talking about practicing medicine or even law. In the Information Age this a direct Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #117

Please cite the shield law governing federal investigations, nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #128

I misspoke we have state shield laws not federal but this bill as written doesn't Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #139

Authoritarians dont have a clue as to what "thoughtful discussion" is. rhett o rick Sep 2013 #25

Hell yes I support this bill. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #27

So why dont you provide a "thoughtful discussion"? I love thoughtful rhett o rick Sep 2013 #33

I've been trying. I've pointed out that if you're going to extend to journalists geek tragedy Sep 2013 #37

Here's an adequate definition: anyone who reports or publishes. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #76

So, anyone with a Facebook account should never have to cooperate geek tragedy Sep 2013 #77

No, that is not the logical conclusion and you know it. When you make a logical fallacy Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #79

But of course, you don't address the examples or work through the details. So be it. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #80

You realize by your standard no one would have been geek tragedy Sep 2013 #81

No, not the standard at all. Not what the law is about. That's not what it shields. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #86

The law prevents them from testifying or cooperating with subpoenas geek tragedy Sep 2013 #87

Nope. Another illogical false understanding of the proposed law. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #88

wrong again geek tragedy Sep 2013 #89

Exactly, but not wrong. The law does not cover the article and it is not a free pass. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #90

Journalists would not have absolute privilege, only that connected with geek tragedy Sep 2013 #91

You claimed they would in post 77 and 81. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #93

So, if the Steubenville guys had said "this is like journalism and everything dudes, so geek tragedy Sep 2013 #99

Strawman argument. It does not apply for reasons I've already given. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #100

You pose wanting a "thoughtful discussion" and this is the best you can come up with. We see. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #82

It isn't restricted to citizens. Any person publishing in any media. Warren Stupidity Sep 2013 #140

Read the Constitution. Eddie Haskell Sep 2013 #45

I did several times while getting my law degree. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #47

there's your problem, geek Eddie Haskell Sep 2013 #52

Yep, I understand the constitution, whereas you imagine it to be something it is not nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #53

Then you surely have read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. But I thought you disapproved sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #110

The constitution is the law, not the word of God. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #111

Which parts of the Constitution don't work? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #114

Until it is amended, it is the law, whether it "works" or not in your opinion. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #121

The alternative is that they don't sue because they have no right to sue and are forced geek tragedy Sep 2013 #123

None of which appears in the three paragraphs of my post and is not applicable to this subthread. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #130

A thoughtful discussion, first and foremost, requires thought. Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #118

Yes, yes, the post to which I was responding is more your cup of tea-- geek tragedy Sep 2013 #126

Thank you for further demonstrating my point. n/t Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #132

Why are you same few *always* front and center, defending this sort of thing? Marr Sep 2013 #153

Shield laws are not authoritarian. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #156

Always the same group. And the particularly ludicrous "tell" here woo me with science Sep 2013 #161

Excellent point. Marr Sep 2013 #163

X1000 bvar22 Sep 2013 #55

Yup. + 1000 beevul Sep 2013 #66

Thank you. sibelian Sep 2013 #142

But if a journalist is 'anyone who says they're one', then you are trying to shut up journalists muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #147

False equivalence (and you know it) bobduca Sep 2013 #164

Unless you agree... sarisataka Sep 2013 #2

Apparently so. I, for one, welcome our Police State masters. nt Demo_Chris Sep 2013 #4

What a bunch of fucking bullshit gopiscrap Sep 2013 #8

Wow - that's a strong attack on the OP muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #149

What Country is This? jsr Sep 2013 #9

Who do you consider to be a journalist? randome Sep 2013 #10

Who do YOU consider to be a journalist? nm rhett o rick Sep 2013 #28

It's a pertinent question that I haven't given much thought to. randome Sep 2013 #42

Anyone who seeks to report the truth. Eddie Haskell Sep 2013 #50

That just puts off the definition. Anyone can claim to be reporting the truth. randome Sep 2013 #57

They can claim to be telling the truth, like our Corporate Owned media who claimed as they sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #120

Who do YOU consider to be a journalist? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #115

As I said, it's a complicated question. randome Sep 2013 #146

Finally, maybe we can discredit Ben Franklin and that Thomas Paine guy rurallib Sep 2013 #11

They were TERRORISTS! Fat King George said so himself, and now we have the exact same type Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #136

No, because that's not being proposed by anyone. Anyone who thinks that's the issue geek tragedy Sep 2013 #12

It's the thin edge of the wedge and it is a kind of defacto licensing. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #23

Oh you've only been officially credentialed 2 months. Jesus Malverde Sep 2013 #41

Your post is meaningless without explanation and expansion. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #43

It's part of the "definition" of who is a journalist and is dumb. Jesus Malverde Sep 2013 #49

Right. Thanks for your response. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #58

Do you realize that just about every state has some kind of law that's very geek tragedy Sep 2013 #48

Yes, that's the point. The federal law is more restrictive than states laws. And it is Federal. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #62

Federal law is broader, since it includes not only those categories but also geek tragedy Sep 2013 #64

I don't think the ACLU are fascist thugs. Sorry that you do. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #68

The ACLU agrees with me and disagrees with you on this bill, so of course geek tragedy Sep 2013 #70

Strawman target. I didn't call them fascists. I didn't call supporters of the bill fascist. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #71

Of course "journalists" support the new law. It recognizes them but not their competitors! Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #67

This is an emotional conspiracy theory type issue for many people Democat Sep 2013 #148

Your ignorance is not the fault of people who understand the issue. Eddie Haskell Sep 2013 #51

Undoubtedly this will be challenged in the courts. Skidmore Sep 2013 #13

Why would a journalist shield law be challenged in court? nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #21

When it is a shield limitation law, not a shield extension law. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #26

That is factually false. Currently NO ONE benefits from that shield. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #30

Great. Now bloggers and "semi-official" journalists would have to pay to sue for protection. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #34

I responded to the original version of your post, before you edited it so substantially. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #35

+1000 for the OP +1000000000 for "Please don't feed the trolls.".... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #15

I'm tired of the debates. I'm tired of the compromise. It is time to fight for liberal values. liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #18

Well, should we be surprised? We have been having 'serious' discussions on what is the sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #19

The OP is a lie. What's being debated is a shield law to protect journalists. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #20

That is interesting. Do you have links? nm rhett o rick Sep 2013 #31

Yes: geek tragedy Sep 2013 #32

Thank you. This is a good start. I havent made up my mind on this and am willing to rhett o rick Sep 2013 #36

How . . . reasonable of you nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #38

You just cant be decent can you? I was serious, but I find that those that have a weak argument rhett o rick Sep 2013 #39

Apologies, wasn't meant as a slight to you. Was serious--you are being reasonable. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #46

Links in this article: Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #44

Yes, why not let the politicians decide ... Eddie Haskell Sep 2013 #54

Who gets to have this serious "debates" ? Autumn Sep 2013 #24

"Camel's nose under the tent" thing... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #29

bingo questionseverything Sep 2013 #56

gotta love opednews questionseverything Sep 2013 #65

Is opednews.com an approved organization? Are Simpson and March paid a salary? Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #69

non,no,no & no questionseverything Sep 2013 #74

They would be covered. Read the bill the committee reported out nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #84

In a nutshell, bvar22 Sep 2013 #59

+1 woo me with science Sep 2013 #151

Fascist ACLU: FFIA "on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government geek tragedy Sep 2013 #60

OMG. Can you get any more DISHONEST?? cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #73

The Feinstein amendment got incorporated into the bill the ACLU is endorsing there. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #75

Your intent was to be dishonest. You succeeded in that. cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #83

Lashing out at me doesn't redeem this post of yours. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #85

Your failure to address the issue is unconvincing (opposition of ACLU to Feinstein clause). nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #94

The ACLU supports the version that passed committee. They didn't like Feinstein's efforts nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #98

Are you this fast and loose with facts in your presumed law practice? DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2013 #144

Nothing I said is close to untrue. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #150

Signed, sealed, and delivered. Thank You, DisgustipatedinCA! bvar22 Sep 2013 #155

Well said. woo me with science Sep 2013 #162

Dishonesty. woo me with science Sep 2013 #143

Dunno about "more", but see the straw men & deliberate misrepresentations tragedy uses upthread. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #95

"Damning with faint praise." Cerridwen Sep 2013 #103

Let's look at the language the ACLU actually used. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #104

Wanna cherry pick? Done. Cerridwen Sep 2013 #108

If a newspaper says "vote for Candidate X over Candidate Y" that is an endorsement. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #109

The ACLU is saying "pass this bill" rather than the other version. Cerridwen Sep 2013 #112

No, the ACLU is saying that THE STATUS QUO is unacceptable. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #122

Again, your fallacy that this bill & status quo are the only two alternatives. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #135

ACLU saying "modify the bill before passing it". Specifically object to the journalist definition.nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #124

Thank you. Cerridwen Sep 2013 #134

Are "journos" considered real journalists? madinmaryland Sep 2013 #61

Why are we trying to regulate things like this? Aerows Sep 2013 #97

Right, but the existence of a law passed out of committee kind of forces our hands. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #101

Because people pushing it *want* a less free press. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #159

Clearly Aerows Sep 2013 #160

I will be calling them on Monday to say No, No and HELL No..... Swede Atlanta Sep 2013 #102

+1 We all need to do this. woo me with science Sep 2013 #152

"Trolls" reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 ProSense Sep 2013 #125

A day late and a dollar short. Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #137

1) ACLU support part only. 2) Reporters like guild protection against competitors. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #138

But you must admit those are some very nice facts bobduca Sep 2013 #165

"it"? What scales up? Your post is so terse it is not pithy but is obscure. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #166

Sorry, was too obtuse before coffee bobduca Sep 2013 #167

I still don't understand you any better, but carry on. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #168

I'm saying bobduca Sep 2013 #171

Journalism is .... Scuba Sep 2013 #145

"Everything else is public relations." woo me with science Sep 2013 #157

They're not "trolls", they're minders. kenny blankenship Sep 2013 #169

just like bobduca Sep 2013 #170

You are correct. nt woo me with science Sep 2013 #172