Friday, June 07, 2013
Lindsey Graham Hates Blogs, Free Speech
Are we starting to get under the skin of U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.)? At first glance it would appear that way …
Graham, a frequent target of this website’s criticism (due to his frequent awfulness), suggested this week that bloggers don’t deserve one of the most basic freedoms guaranteed to all Americans under the U.S. Bill of Rights.
“Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves,” Graham said earlier this week. “Is any blogger out there saying anything – do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.”
Wait … what? Did this guy just imply that bloggers don’t deserve First Amendment protection? Because last time we checked that was a right guaranteed to everybody.
Source
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What Lindsey Graham was actually referring to was whether bloggers deserve the same "rights" as journalists - i.e. shield laws which protect journalists from being compelled to name sources.
It's frog-hair splitting, I know, but it is an important question these days. We really need to define "Journalist" as widely as possible to keep society free.
The 1st ammendment already describes it as widely as possible. The term "the press" refers to the only alternative to the spoken word available at the time, the printing press. It is not "The Press" as in some elite bunch of card-carrying do-nothings. It is everyone's right to put forth speech in a non-spoken manner.
Actually, most of the media talking heads we see on TV are not technically "journalists", but reporters. It's just their mega-ego's, huge salaries, and celebrity that allows them to be called journalists.
A reporter is simply someone who transfers (reports) information to someone else, which clearly would include all of us.
Here in Teutonia, Eussr province, we have freedom of opinion and expression. As long as it is the right opinion. We also have freedom of religion. As long as it is the right religion (ie anything but Biblically Christian).
Gee Stefan, here in Amerika, we have the very same thing. Our situation was brought about by weak, gullible, and totally mindless voters. What about your situation?
A. Levy.....funny, we have a majority of weak, gullible totally mindless folk here too. Been like that for centuries. Mind you, voting at the booth never changes anything, never did. If it were otherwise, it would be illegal. The only other venues are the soapbox, the jury box, and the cartridge box. Of those, options #1 and #2 are already subverted or illegal, and the third is now so unlikely to succeed yet programmed to take place soon, that it would be wise to seek a remote location quickly. The American interlude is about over...don't waste your efforts trying to stop it, just get out of its way.
Post a Comment