Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Durbin's Asinine Dodge

Orwell would be proud of Dick Durbin.

...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...


Hot Air provides a clue for the Senator:

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.”

The column goes on to opine that "the press" in the 1700's included pamphlets and makes the analogy between pamphlets and blogs/twitters.  That's over-thinking it.  "Speech" is clear enough, no matter the medium.

But making NYT/CNN/CBS/NBC/NPR into "more equal" than bloggers/tweeters?  Not exactly 1A literalism.


Dale said...

What is the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of the press in your example?

Anonymous said...

I'll hazard to answer Dale's question. I feel the proposed law, the one Dad objects to, is more like "freedom for a government sanctioned printing press". You can say what you want as long as you have that "freedom of press" sticker on it. The blogger can't get that sticker. It twists the amendment to being "freedom of approved press", or that your free press rights grow from government favor and edict.

Dale said...

Dad29 highlighted Freedom of Speech and said no matter the medium. However, the founding fathers listed both Press and Speech. They meant the two to be different.
Speech is individual; Press is a process that includes development, production, and dissemination of government dissent(or assent) ...in my view.

Dad29 said...


Speech is not limited to newspaper stories, nor is speech "individual." Unions "speak" collectively, e.g.

Durbin would have it that only 'licensed professional news people' are protected. That eliminates blogs and non 'licensed professionals'.

That is wrong