Senate Judiciary Committee passes a law defining journalists which fails to protect bloggers
Late last week the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a media shield law which would protect journalists from testifying against their sources, sounds reasonable enough, right?
But this law goes on to redefine what constitutes a journalist and that is where things get a little dicey. Clearly this is an attempt to ensure that bloggers do not have the same protections as other journalists as Dianne Feinstein made clear:
defined for the first time what constitutes a “real reporter” deserving of extra protection versus what Sen. Dianne Feinstein called a “17-year-old blogger” who doesn’t deserve a legal shield.
Before I go any further I feel it necessary to state that I am not a journalist and I do not pretend to be. I have no sources and I am simply a man writing my opinions on the issues of the day, but there are many real big time bloggers out there who do have sources and it would appear as if they are they ones the Obama regime is worried about getting under control.
But this comment is the one that really has me up in arms:
All we’re doing is adding privilege to existing First Amendment rights, so there is, logically, zero First Amendment threat out of this,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D) of Rhode Island
All they are doing is adding additional privileges to existing rights? In other words some people are more equal than others under the law. This sounds like something out of the book ‘Animal Farm’: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
By adding privileges to some people, but not all, you are, in effect, denying these privileges to others. What happened to equal protection under the law? The journalists who are now going to get these protections are already mostly just an extension of the Obama regime’s propaganda arm so no protection is needed for these people. Which means the goal of this legislation is to deny bloggers the same protection. While they are claiming this is not a violation of the first amendment because they are extending privileges the opposite is actually true–they are denying these privileges to the people with whom they disagree under the guise of extending the first amendment.
America's Watchtower 
Every march starts with a first step and that is what it is. If is so simple to determine why is it going to be left up to Eric holder to make the final determination. Cass susnstein wrote extensively we need to be silenced. This is where it begins.
LikeLike
Exactly, this is a foot in the door and we know it will only expand from here. Once they are in the door we will never be able to kick them out again.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
LikeLike
Thanks again for sharing.
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
These bastards must spend every waking moment conjuring up these abstract ideas to legislate them into law. What normal person cares to conceive of ways to take away their fellow citizens’ constitutional rights? I’m close to the point of desensitization from the endless onslaught upon what was up until 5 years ago an exceptional country.
LikeLike
They are trying to desensitize us and wear us out, we cannot let that happen.
LikeLike
Well, they won’t keep me quiet. And, when they start dhutting down bloggers, there will be hell to pay. When wiil people finally say they have had enough???
LikeLike
The sad part is that bloggers on the left probably support this because they know they are not the targets but they should be careful what they wish for.
LikeLike
I seem like a broken record, asking the same question over and over; who elects this scum to office?
LikeLike
The half of America who pays no taxes and feels no effects of any of this!
LikeLike
Being just a man with opinions and writing on the issues of the day, I believe, should absolutely fall under freedom of the press. I haven’t read up on any Supreme Court decisions covering this but I highly doubt the Founders intended that part of the 1st Amendment to apply solely to bona fide journalists. Look at the historical context and it’s plain to see that Amendment was written as a response to the treatment Colonials received from their British rulers. Colonists writing negative things about the king and the Brits suffered retribution for it and they were not just journalists.
You’re absolutely correct; this is an attempt to deny bloggers and other alternative media the protection given to those who are able to score a press card. I think I will make my own press card. I’m sure that will satisfy King George III. Oops, I mean Lady Feinstein.
LikeLike
Exactly Charles, they can claim this isn’t an attack on the first amendment because they are not taking anything away from anybody, but they are giving some people special protection that they are not providing to others and I thought we were all supposed to be equal under the law.
LikeLike
Some of us are apparently more equal than others.
LikeLike
Funny how the most transparent administration is also the one that is most harsh on whistleblowers. Remember it was men with opinions and writing on the issues of the day that led to real things happening.
LikeLike
Every once in awhile we are on the same side of an issue and this is one of those times. The article I linked to questioned what the people like Feinstein would consider Thomas Paine, after all he was no journalist but he wrote some of the most important pamphlets of the time.
LikeLike