Yeah. In the wake of the Gunwalker Scandal, I can see why he'd think that.
Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’
“But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: 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.”
19 comments:
Here we go again! A collectivists questioning if Inalienable Rights are the same thing they were when they were “given” to US over 200 years ago. News flash for you and your toadies; I only lose those Rights that I willingly give up, and I willing give none up! Bank on it.
Liberty Clause: makin’ a list and checking it twice
All political speech is protected. All forms of expression of opinion, political or otherwise, are protected. All manner of publicizing the expression of opinion and political speech is protected. The notion that one needs to be a working journalist to enjoy 1st Amendment protection is a diversion to attempt to change the subject.
A lot of these politicians need to be hung up and beat like pinata's.
"I only lose those Rights that I willingly give up"
Try selling yourself into slavery. Can't be done. You cannot willingly give up your civil rights with the possible exception of joining the military. And even those in the military have only accepted restrictions on their rights for the term of their service.
He never heard of pamphleteers?
Would this mean that "journalists" would need to be licensed by the state? Oh great, another tax payer funded bureaucratic nightmare of intrusions, delays and compliance. Not to mention the federal oversight of state affairs!
In light of all that has transpired under the present regime, I'm sure all the "journalists" would be thrilled to fall under more rigorous scrutiny ...and who's running the enforcement mechanisms?
Goin' down hill pretty fast dontcha' think?
Dear Dumbass Durbin,
Which part of the 1A are you willing to have breached, annulled, and denied to those you disagree with?
But before you go there, just remember that any one part of the 1A that's removed for your political pleasure, immediately collapses the remainder of not only the rest of the 1A, but of the entire Constitution.
If the law does not protect me from thee, it also does not protect thee from me. You can't be any more fair then that.
B Woodman
III-per
This in not surprising.
After all who here does not know that Durbin is a Dick?
Sounds to me like Durbin wants to transform the 1st Amendment just like the government has bastardized the 2nd. Just as certain folks can't have guns, and those who can can only have certain types of guns approved by the elite, the level of "free speech" one has will depend on his pecking order in society.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Redlining the INCREDULOUS METER notwithstanding, if ever a Congresscritter said something so unConstitional, this dimwit is the plumb bob of a wannabe despot. And here I thought Durbin was somewhat smart. Low and behold, the truth comes out.
Lesson #1. Never underestimate the depth of stupidity nor contempt of the citizenry in Congress.
Lesson #2-See lesson #1.
Frederic - you nailed it!
If anyone needs a graphic example of how political speech was proscribed (and could be again), one only needs to look to how ole honest abe treated 'journalists' who disagreed with him...............
Damn Democrats. Damn RINO's
They can dish it out but they sure as hell can't take it.
Bastards. Weasels. Explain to me how we the people will ever be able to vote our way out of this corrupt system.
This is so much like the '2nd Amendment covers only flintlocks' argument...really it is saying that some journalists are "more equal" than others on the Animal Farm of the "progressives."
Be very wary of those who advocate depriving anyone of their rights, for any reason, especially "efficiency" or "expedience".
This elitist mutt forgets that he doesn't rule over anyone but his dog.. if I were his dog I'd piss on his leg.
Durbin has show himself top be an Enemy of the People.
Yank lll
Dick Durbin is a treasonous bast*rd and one of the biggest pieces of sh*t in the Senate. He would allow any white person's rights to be taken away, except his own or those he deems worthy, while continuing to expand the rights of blacks, browns, and sodomites.
Rope would be too kind to Mr. Durbin. He needs to be stripped of all assets and forced to live with and like those who he gives the assets of working whites.
"Try selling yourself into slavery."
Straw man argument to my point. Being made a captive slave does not equal acceptance of the condition, unless done so by choice. Selling implies commerce. Plus I said nothing of "civil right." Rights belong to the Individual, and yes people have and do willingly give them up every day. Just because a cross dresser in a black robe says something is constitutional/unconstitutional, does not make it so.
My point still stands.
Liberty Clause
RJP, he's known as "Little Dickie" Durbin.
There are reasons for that, I'm sure..
I didn't have gym class with him, so I don't know if there are other reasons, but he isn't very tall.
Dear Robert Fowler,
How many times do I have to tell you folks that plural words do NOT require an apostrophe! More than one pinata is spelled "pinatas". More than one car is spelled "cars". More than one truck is spelled "trucks". The apostrophe makes a word possessive, as in "belongs to". If an man has a beard that would be the man's beard, because the beard belongs to the man. Got it?
- Old Greybeard
Post a Comment