General Discussion

Bernardo de La Paz

(49,089 posts)

23. It's the thin edge of the wedge and it is a kind of defacto licensing.

Fri Sep 20, 2013, 04:35 PM

Sep 2013

Anyone who doesn't meet the definition in the proposed law is not protected in the same way as the officially recognized "journalists" would be.

Many hateful laws had deceptively mild beginnings. Like civil forfeiture, for example, that pushes the theory that civil property has no need for due process regardless of whether it is a drug-smuggling boat or a family farm some third party planted in an abandoned corner.

Like the application of huge $23,000 fines by the RIAA against grandmothers because a sub-teen granddaughter downloaded a few songs.

Like the "voter fraud" bills that end up denying elderly voters the vote because of so many hurdles being placed in their way.

Like trans-vaginal probes and the reality of their application versus the wording of the statute.

Can you imagine the effect of denying protection to whistleblowing bloggers this law would have in the hands of the likes of Governor Walker or Justice Samuel Alito or Bush III?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

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