General Discussion

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)

11. The government was never meant to decide who is a journalist.

Tue May 20, 2014, 12:03 PM

May 2014

The Founders understood the importance of an adversarial press and journalistic freedom, which is why it is ensconced in the very first amendment to the Constitution. This is a serious assault on the Constitution and our ability to defend ourselves against government manipulation and control of information.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What’s the Point of a Source Protection Law That Wouldn’t Protect Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden? [View all] marmar May 2014 OP

This country cannot survive much more of this. nt woo me with science May 2014 #1

It really can't. Aerows May 2014 #15

du rec. xchrom May 2014 #2

Because neither of them followed the rules to be considered legitimate whistleblowers? MohRokTah May 2014 #3

exactly Niceguy1 May 2014 #35

It supports the illusion of good government. Scuba May 2014 #4

While ripping at its very foundations. woo me with science May 2014 #7

So anyone who says "I am a journalist" is automatically a journalist, right? randome May 2014 #9

"So anyone who says "I am a journalist" is automatically a journalist, right?" Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #12

Without even reading the vast majority of them, Manning dumped three-quarters of a million struggle4progress May 2014 #5

Revealing NSA's hacking into civilian computers in China was awesome! Vattel May 2014 #19

This is intolerable. This is unacceptable in the United States of America. woo me with science May 2014 #6

The only *true* whistleblowers, deserving of protection under the law, dawg May 2014 #8

+1 woo me with science May 2014 #22

This law might not be worse than useless if snot May 2014 #10

The government was never meant to decide who is a journalist. woo me with science May 2014 #11

The Founders understood the press. They had no idea about the Internet. randome May 2014 #28

Personally, snot May 2014 #40

It's simple. The 1% pays for protection from truth and democracy. nt Zorra May 2014 #13

+1. snot May 2014 #41

Kick. This is important. woo me with science May 2014 #14

to get more finger-wagging at lefty ingratitude on DU's Frontpage? MisterP May 2014 #16

Only well regulated, licensed, NSA approved, whistleblowers need apply for protection. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #17

It's beyond sickening. It's enraging. woo me with science May 2014 #18

Kick. Still very, very important. woo me with science May 2014 #20

KICK woo me with science May 2014 #21

There has to be some give-and-take in the definition Blue_Tires May 2014 #23

Absolute garbage. No. The Constitution works just fine the way it has all along. woo me with science May 2014 #24

Right on time...First day back in awhile and I'm instantly insulted Blue_Tires May 2014 #25

Read this and substitute the First Amendment for the Fourth. woo me with science May 2014 #26

The goverment can decide who is or isn't a schoolteacher Blue_Tires May 2014 #34

Argle blargle. woo me with science May 2014 #36

You know, I'd truly appreciate it if you could post without the insults and ad-homs Blue_Tires May 2014 #37

Please don't deliberately misattribute descriptions of arguments woo me with science May 2014 #38

And you're now accusing me of said tactic? Blue_Tires May 2014 #39

The last thing they want is to protect whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden. nt bemildred May 2014 #27

More and more Orwellian. woo me with science May 2014 #29

It is not hard to write a law that protects whistleblowers, if that is what you want to do. nt bemildred May 2014 #30

Nope. It wouldn't be hard. woo me with science May 2014 #32

Puppet theater Union Scribe May 2014 #31

Grotesque and cynical. woo me with science May 2014 #33

The point would be to protect genuine whistleblowers. Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #42