My blog is a zero dollar blog, thank you very much Mrs. Feinstein.
But seriously, who the hell do politicians think they are trying to dictate who is granted nature’s rights?
Is this real? I needs a source. And of source confirms she needs a noose.
Yeah she really said this. I did a write-up a while back about the ‘Free Flow of Information Act’ (catchy, isn’t it? who could possibly vote against that…) which made headlines around the same time Eric Holder suggested that we needed to enact media ‘shield’ laws (in the wake of the AP and Fox news reporters being prosecuted).
Here are a few excerpts:
“This bill is described as a reporter shield law — I believe it should be applied to real reporters,” Feinstein said last week. “The current version of the bill would grant a special privilege to people who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications.”
The Feinstein-Durbin proposed amendment would narrowly define journalists as “a salaried agent” of a media company. Feinstein also reportedly said that the bill shouldn’t apply to WikiLeaks or “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $5 and starts a blog.”
Despite the feel-good adjective “shield”, the legislation is notoriously pro-State. Currently AP and Fox news reporters are facing charges on the Espionage Act of 1917. Frankly, the reporters conduct does not measure up to the “imminent lawless action” standard of measuring inflammatory speech against the first amendment outlined in Brandenburg v. Ohio. From USA Today:
Journalists associations and others have criticized the Obama administration for the Justice Department seizure of phone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press, part of an investigation into national security news leaks.
The reason the administration and Eric Holder want this media “shield” law to pass is so that they can include exceptions to judicial process and legal recourse by saying the magic words, “national security.” They want to draw out a legal exception for their current actions against AP and Fox which are egregiously unconstitutional.
And my personal favorite Feinstein moment:
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.
Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a “covered journalist” as someone who gathers and reports news for “an entity or service that disseminates news and information.” The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any “legitimate news-gathering activities.”
Feinstein is a bigger threat to the American people than Al Qaeda.