Thinks Bloggers and Twitter Users do not have First Amendment Rights. Suggests Government has the right to silence those who are ‘not approved’ journalists.
In answering the charges made against the Obama Regime’s targeting and seizing of private phone records of AP reporters and employees, AND the criminal targeting and intimidation of Fox News reporter James Rosen by Obama’s INJustice Department, Little Dick Durbin defended Obama’s actions by in-essence stating the Constitution is out of date in regards to journalism. He suggested to Chris Wallace of Fox News’ that he believes certain people should not have First Amendment Rights, and then went on to say that the Constitution is out of date in 2013. He asks if the Constitution applies to Bloggers and Twitter Users; “Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”
So in Durbin’s feeble MarxoFascist mindset, only Government-approved entities in the press should be allowed the freedom of press and speech.
Here’s more vía the Daily Caller:
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said that it was too early to call for a special counsel to look into the Justice Department’s monitoring of journalists.
Instead, Durbin said he backed a “media shield law,” but was not sure if such a law would protect bloggers or “someone who is tweeting.”
Durbin asks “What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”
Ed Morrissey of Malkin’s Hot Air adds some more thoughts:
Thanks to the Obama administration’s attacks on the Associated Press and its representation in federal court that Fox News’ James Rosen is a spy for asking questions, one has to wonder whether the First Amendment applies to anyone in the Age of Hope and Change. Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Senator Dick Durbin whether Barack Obama’s promise to have Eric Holder look into cases of abuse that he personally approved represents a conflict of interest, but Durbin dodges that question and talks instead about the shield law proposed repeatedly over the last few years as the appropriate Congressional response to the scandal. However, Durbin asks what exactly “freedom of the press” means in 2013, and wonders aloud whether it would include bloggers, Twitter users, and the rest of the Internet media
Here’s what the First Amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Press at the time would certainly have meant newspapers, which were the high-tech information revolution of the day. It would also have included pamphleteers, perhaps even more than newspapers, as pamphleteers helped drive revolutionary sentiment. Their modern-day analogs would arguable be bloggers and Twitter users, those who reported news and proclaimed opinions outside of the establishment press.
However, Durbin’s asking the wrong question. The question isn’t who gets protected, but what. Journalism is not an identity or a guild, but an action and a process — and anyone engaged in that activity must be treated equally before the law. A shield law based on membership via employment in privileged workplaces or certified by guilds doesn’t protect journalism, it becomes rent-seeking behavior that ensures that only the large players get protected, as I wrote ten days ago.
Durbin’s question isn’t even the biggest non-sequitur in this argument. The biggest non-sequitur is the shield law itself, which wouldn’t have even addressed the Rosen or AP situation. And considering that the Obama administration ignored existing statutes in both cases, why should we believe they would obey a shield law when it got in their way?
What we have here, is a MarxoFascist regime and it’s sycophants like Durbin, TRAITORS ALL – attacking the First Amendment directly. They have attacked Christians in their right of Free Exercise, they have attacked TEA Party groups, Conservative groups, anti-Abortion groups by using the IRS to attack them. They are waging war to abolish the Second Amendment, they already ignore the Fourth and Tenth Amendments, and now finally they think they are powerful enough to attack the Press and decide whom can and whom cannot ask questions of this regime, or whom is allowed freedom to speak.
What’s the purpose of intent behind Durbin’s public comment? REGULATING the First Amendment. Demanding government decide who is and who is NOT a journalist. Perhaps some kind of licensing scheme – and in the process (and argument that you cannot yell “fire!” in a crowded theater) they will say, speech and the press are weapons that must be regulated to demand “responsible” speech and press. After all, this same bunch is currently arguing that Americans support giving up their Second Amendment Rights for “common sense” gun control. Soon I imagine they will be saying that we must give up our first Amendment rights for ‘common sense’ press regulations.
This is not just about politics either. It covers regulating speech about Islam. Obama just last week warned Burma against persecuting Muslims – yet in his term of office, NOT A WORD about Islam persecuting Christians, the slaughter of Christians in Egypt or Sudan. Who arrested a man for posting a Youtube video making fun of Islam. Who told the world that “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet Mohammed”.
We’re now in a full blown tyranny that if left intact, will not be satisfied by stripping us of what remains of our birthrights. They will never be satisfied. History shows that these same people, with this same ideology, do not rest until they exterminate their opposition in legally-sanctioned genocide.
Because that is where all of this goes folks.