Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So now we're expected to have serious "debates" about whether journalists need to be approved [View all]Autumn
(45,120 posts)24. Who gets to have this serious "debates" ?
Congress and the Senate? That's a joke.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
172 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
Unlike you, we recognize the difference between denouncing ideas and stomping on heads. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#16
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
49 states have shield laws or court precedents and there are Supreme Court precedents.
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#78
Defaming & unsubstantiated claims covered by other laws. This law covers different angle. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#96
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
Not when the vast majority of the journalists protected by said "shield law" are owned by
Uncle Joe
Sep 2013
#105
1) Free speech & press is a right, not a privilege. 2) Yes, have to establish citizenship ...
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#116
Amendment 1: The right to a Free Press is restricted by restricting the definition of journalist.
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#129
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
I misspoke we have state shield laws not federal but this bill as written doesn't
Uncle Joe
Sep 2013
#139
I've been trying. I've pointed out that if you're going to extend to journalists
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#37
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
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
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
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
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
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
But if a journalist is 'anyone who says they're one', then you are trying to shut up journalists
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2013
#147
They can claim to be telling the truth, like our Corporate Owned media who claimed as they
sabrina 1
Sep 2013
#120
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Is opednews.com an approved organization? Are Simpson and March paid a salary?
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#69
Fascist ACLU: FFIA "on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#60
The Feinstein amendment got incorporated into the bill the ACLU is endorsing there.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#75
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
Dunno about "more", but see the straw men & deliberate misrepresentations tragedy uses upthread. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#95
If a newspaper says "vote for Candidate X over Candidate Y" that is an endorsement.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#109
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
Right, but the existence of a law passed out of committee kind of forces our hands. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#101
1) ACLU support part only. 2) Reporters like guild protection against competitors.
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#138
"it"? What scales up? Your post is so terse it is not pithy but is obscure. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2013
#166