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]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)107. Every legal privilege requires the person asserting it to establish that
they are entitled to it.
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