Thrown under the bus???

Apparently there is now a ‘definition’ for journalist…

And guess who doesn’t fit the definition!!!

Bloggers and websites!

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to “real reporters” and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.

“I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she said.

So does this now, or will it open bloggers and websites up to legal action/lawsuits???

Probably, and maybe a left handed attempt to ‘control’ bloggers?  I dunno…

SO I guess my question is, what happened to the First Amendment???

Your thoughts?


Thrown under the bus??? — 21 Comments

  1. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freed of speech, or of the press,…” Sounds suspiciously like that is exactly what they are up to. The last line from the LA Times article was telling: “If everyone are journalists, no one is.” They can’t define journalism as an activity either because they would effectively remove the editorial journalism and opinion commentary that has supplanted “real journalism”.

  2. They’ve never been concerned with the Constitution – merely how to restrict it protections of the “little guy”. Perhaps we need a definition of “politician” to restrict their election to only those who actually care about the country and the citizen’s rights.

  3. “Real Reporters” only work for progressive publications such as Mother Jones. I don’t think that Feinstein would consider that the people at Fox News would fall under her law either.

  4. Sooo, free speech is now a “privilege?” Somebody needs new reading glasses, and a good swift kick in the ballot box.

  5. “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to “real reporters” and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.”

    I haven’t been 17 in a while, Fienswine can kiss my old ass. When everything goes TU, and it’s coming, I hope she’s in the first wave that find out about rope.

    “I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege”.

    I do have a “special privilege” bitch, it’s called the 1st Amendment. If you don’t like it, go through the process and have it repealed.

    It’s a shame the people of Kommifornia keep re-electing this turd and her sister Boxcar Bertha. SF and LA need a good flushing.

  6. This was settled long ago.

    “I let my GARAND talk for me.”

  7. I’ve interviewed a Presidential Candidate, I”ve interviewed musicians, Reality Starts, Authors, bloggers and a lot of other people.

    Am I not a journalist?

    Under her proposal, I’m not.

  8. Ed- Couldn’t agree more!

    DH- Concur!!!

    Bill- I LIKE it!!! 🙂

    LL- You’re right… Sigh…

    WSF- Their goal is to STAY in power any way they can…

    Suz- Agree, especially with the kick!!!

    Robert- We’ve been saying that for years!

    Les- Yep!

    Brighid- But you and I both know they’ll keep re-electing her!!!

    Lotta- 😛

    Ed- No question!

    drjim- Yep, the elite…

    TOTW- Hope you’re correct that it never makes it!

    Mark- Nope, you’re a sleazy blogger… 😀

  9. All the “official” news outlets in our county (Cass County, MO) are liberal propaganda organs. My blog is the only conservative means for a counter-weight to them. Why would a democrat/liberal want to close a conservative news outlet, hmmm?

  10. This is about enacting a Federal shield law for reporters, so they can’t (mostly) be compelled to give up their sources. It is not (at least, not yet) about limiting 1st Amendment rights for the rest of us.

  11. Ed- Yep!

    Guffaw- Thanks!

    Crucis- You know it…

    CM- You’re right, not yet… But what if ‘we’ broke a story? Like Fast and Furious (like Sipsey Street did)? Don’t we deserve that same protection?