Senate Bill Attempts To Make The “Right” of Free Press a “Privilege”

By: Ben Swann
129
Senator Feinstein

The Senate Judiciary committee has moved forward a bill that would offer “Shield Law” protections for journalists and prevent them from having to testify about their work. The bill, moved forward on Thursday after members of the committee took it upon themselves to define who is a journalist and who is not.


Senator Charles Schumer says that this bill “balances the need for national security with that of a free press.” Though wouldn’t that beg the question, if the press (media) is restricted (balanced with security), how could it be free?

Of course the real story here centers around Senator Dianne Feinstein who has for weeks insisted that the committee must create and limit a definition for the title of “reporter”. Feinstein says that she cannot support everyone who has a blog with “special privilege”, going on to say “If Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have privilege. I’m not going to go there.”

Senator Feinstein

Some groups like The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press are supporting the bill which was approved by a vote of 13-5 as being a step in the right direction. The group supports a Feinstein amendment to the bill which allows it to cover journalists on several levels including freelancers, part-timers and student journalists. Though the bill itself doesn’t actually cover anyone because it goes on to allow the Feds to “compel disclosure” from journalists who have information that could stop or prevent crimes, prevent acts of terrorism or information that could cause “significant harm to national security.”

So lets go back for a minute to what Senator Feinstein said about Edward Snowden. The Senator believes that the shield law should be limited because if it is not, Snowden could start his own website and be protected? But if the Feds believe that what Snowden shares with a reporter is a danger to national security, even under the structure of this law, the shield law would be ineffective.

Of course, through all of this, the biggest issue is that Congress is attempting to pass a law to “define a privilege” that is not a privilege at all. Freedom of the press is a right. According to Black’s Law Dictionary “a constitutional right is a right that has been guaranteed by the United States Constitution that cannot be violated by laws or by Congress.”

Freedom of the press is a Constitutional right and cannot be revoked, even for national security purposes. You likely already know this, so why is it important? Because please notice that Senator Feinstein above refers to extending shield law protection as “special privilege”.

Go back to Black’s Law Dictionary. A privilege is defined as “A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens.”

The biggest difference between a right and a privilege… one can be revoked and the other cannot. Consider for a moment the men who helped to frame revolution for the colonies at the birth of the country. No single person was more influential in sowing the seeds of revolution than Thomas Paine, who in 1776 self-published a pamphlet titled “Common Sense.” Paine, was not a “professional journalist” in fact, he was a corset maker by trade. And yet it was Paine who was among the first to openly reject the idea of the colonies subjecting themselves to the British government thousands of miles away. During the early battles of the Revolution when the Continental Army suffered humiliating defeats, it was Paine who published papers titled “American Crisis”.

Poet Joel Barlow might have best described the role of Thomas Paine, one of the original “alternative journalists” in America by saying “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.”

When Senator Feinstein claims that protecting a “real reporter” is important but protecting the rights of a “17 year-old with a website” is not, she and other members of Congress are attempting to define who has permission to speak and who does not.


  • RK

    This is very bad. I knew they wouldn’t stop at the 2nd Amendment. We have elected people seeking to rule rather than govern.

    • Robert Zraick

      Actually I don’t even want them to govern, which means control. All I want them to do is to protect my rights and the rights of everyone else.

  • Kevin Merck

    My father was born in 1914 and got his first license to drive in the thirties. The excuse for licensing was to ensure that everyone who was driving a car had basic skills, but not every state required you to take a test.

    My father told me, (more than once) how he went in to get his licence and was asked by the receptionost if he could drive. He said yes and she began to type out his licence. She laid his new licence on the counter and said that’ll be 10 cents.

    My dad would then look me in the eye and say “that’s where it all starts”.

    I listened to that story more than once and never knew if he had forgoten that he had already told me that story or if he figured I needed to hear it more than once for it to sink in:-) Well about 10 years later it finnally did sink in and I knew exactly the point he was trying to make.

    If you give these cockroaches an inch they’ll take a 1000 miles and it always looks harmless in the begining, but it gets more and more oppressive as time marches on.

    Fighting these people on single issues like this is a losing battle. We need to slash the size of government by about 90% in order to make our liberties secure.

    • Andrew Jefferson

      This was a great post. 10/10. This is how they got the income tax to pass all the state legislatures. “Oh its just a few percent on the wealthy”

    • ax123man

      This is a great story. Unfortunately, it helps spells out why the battle is always lost. Like fire ants, the feinstein’s just keep on coming, never letting up. You can win the battle ten times, but they are always the home team, coming up to bat. And, they learn from every failure, taking new and better tactics to win the next time. New ways to lie, bury text deeper in the bill, change it at the last second. It never ends.

      As long as there are governments, they will track toward tyranny and socialism, and the only way out is the elimination of that monopoly.

    • SlimJim

      Agree, this is a great post. Reminds me of how much I miss my Dad — it sounds like your dad and mine were made from the same metal. Pretty much three generations is all it takes to destroy liberty. Without proper education for our children, their heads will be filled with just so much fluff that they will have no recognition of that which was lost.

      I’ll disagree on one thing. As long as there are more than two people in the world, your liberties cannot be made secure. Someone is always going to want to force you to see things their way. This is why minarchism was a brief small step for me in my path from Goldwater republican to neocon to the honorable Ron Paul movement opening my eyes. Ron Paul did win. He was never mean to be president. He was meant to propel a movement beyond his understanding. A movement and understanding that can’t be locked up or voted out. Natural rights. They were there when mankind appeared, when you and I were born — they will never go away. There is always hope because of this. Not because of any one single man.

      • Kevin Merck

        Thanks SlimJim.
        There’s hardly a day that goes by where I don’t think of my father and my mother.

      • Tim

        I think Ron Paul’s aware of the scope of the movement he’s created.

        • SlimJim

          Tim, you’re right. I can tell from reading my post that I was internetting when I should have been sleeping. The hazards of shift work.

    • Robert Zraick

      Yeah. They said the federal income tax was only temporary and would only be 1% and only for the very rich.

    • Tim

      I just got my license renewed today. I’m okay with drivers licenses, but if they started asking too much information on it (like about where you live) that would be another story.

      • Kevin Merck

        Have you heard about “real ID” ? … look it up.

        The lesson to be learned here is that once people gave up their right to drive, for a license to operate a motor vehicle, they gave up a right, for a privilege, which can be taken from them for any reason.

        People like you were born to be slaves.

        • Tim

          I just said drivers licenses seemed pretty harmless. I don’t agree with real ID in the least. No need for you to insult me like I’m a sheep.
          They can get real ID on your Social Security number too.

          • Kevin Merck

            I’d rather have a ten year old out there driving a car (that’s a ridiculous argument, but I’ll play along) than a psychopath who is not eligible to be President with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

            Requiring people who are not using the roads to engage in commerce, to have a driver’s license, is illegal.

            Want to keep your rights, Timmy, stop seeing illegal infringements on your rights as harmless, because they are not.

          • Tim

            It’s horrible when we have psychopaths with their finger on the nuclear trigger.
            There’s already too many bad drivers on the road. Children, drunk drivers and heroin junkies have no business endangering people’s lives behind the wheel is all.

  • Matthew Graeff

    Something needs to happen about this. They have it all planned out, once they destroy freedom of the press, all we’ll have to go on is the propaganda of the Federal Government. Well Ben you had a nice run now its time to get on the train and head off to camp.

    • Not Bob

      The feds have been censoring and restricting the press for decades but the internet change the media model and they have been trying to gain control again. This is a desperate grab to take that control back in the most blatant of ways.

    • Timothy Griffin

      We are are already there. Where was the coverage of the 2 Million Biker ride to DC 1.2 Million were there ,BUT no news coverage.

  • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

    When I look at Feinstein I have to wonder if she truly believes in her heart she is doing the right thing and benefitting the country. I’m slow to call a person evil but this is the second time in less than a year she’s lead a charge to knock out or water down one of the pillars of the constitution. Who keeps electing her??

    • Lucky Leisuresuit Larry

      People who still have faith in the state. People who want to be taken care of. Fat dumb & happy people who don’t realize how dangerous this kind of thing is until something like the Bolshevik Revolution happens and it’s too late to do anything about it.

      • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

        The sad part is, I think you’re exactly right…

      • Julio C Hernandez

        That cant be true Lucky, if fat, dumb, happy people that want the state to take care of the came out to vote, we would have a 80-90% voter turn out, we are lucky and makes headline news if we get close to 40% turnout.

    • Tulio Diogo Vieira

      Actually she is doing the right thing and benefitting the country, the only problem is that her country is not the US.

    • Albert

      She does not and is not. And she is evil.

      It’s a ruse to attack the First Amendment and exert even more authoritarian control over the public. Authoritarian fiends like her want to limit the title of “press” to the few corporate media clowns they can control. The corporate media generally just repeats whatever the government or business interests tells them anyway. Feinstein wants you to get your information from those faux “reporters,” and should anyone dare do some actual journalism, the US security agencies will be able to brutally crush them with now worries about the First Amendment protections that are supposed to be the right of every citizen.

      • Albert

        That should have said “no worries.” Typo.

      • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

        Very true. Michael Hastings comes to mind.

    • Dave_Mowers

      Her husband is an executive at, part owner of or sole owner of 7 companies whom have received exclusive, no-bid contracts from the taxpayer totaling billions of dollars but don’t worry according to her they never speak to eachother or co-mingle their assets or anything like that so it is all “legal.”

      • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

        Wow! I never knew this! Thanks for dropping knowledge. I just decided to google what you said and it makes me sick. Shes just as greedy as the rest.

        • Dave_Mowers

          Dude seriously, one contract, for the California high speed rail project management is 900 million dollars that’s being divided up between him and 12 other “partners.” For so-called “managing” what other people do to create the rail line.

          Hilarious fraud.

    • Tim

      Some of them leave some room for ambiguity on their evil. Not Feinstein.
      She wants to ban all guns despite carrying one herself, and in her support of the NSA she’s gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars from them.

      On some of them you can guess, but Feinstein’s shown herself to be genuinely evil.

  • Not Bob

    As is typical in Washington in the age of double speak the title of the bill represents the exact opposite of its goals. The bill attacks journalism and the free press not protects it.

  • Michael

    Call me whatever you wish but before I make any statement regarding this ‘bill’ I would like to know what is the bill identifier? You state information that is exceptionally inflammatory but give no evidence as to the existence of this bill.
    Who introduced this bill, was it in the House or the Senate, is this a federal piece of legislation or a state item, did anyone co-sponsor the bill, what is it’s identifier (SB-XXX, HB-XXX or JR-XXX), has it already been voted on in either house? I have learned very well to verify information and you have given no path to verification of this bill’s existence.

    • Simple Search
    • SovereignMary

      Why don’t you attempt to do your own research Michael instead of expecting everyone else to do your homework for you?
      Believe it or not you CAN DO RESEARCH on a computer!
      “The bill, should it become law, will have a chilling effect on free
      speech, especially any negative discourse against the people in power,
      their policies and plans. Everyone needs to pay very close attention to
      this bill and take a stand to assure its defeat.

      Instead of offering legal protections to journalists and their confidential sources who expose governmental corruption, this law will provide the ‘legal’ means long sought by the Executive branch to instead compel journalists to identify their sources based on a fluid and arbitrary definition of national security and the narrow ‘definition’ of a journalist. It is a direct attack on the First Amendment and a stealth attack against political dissidence. It is a stepping stone to the reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine and a step toward controlling the information accessible on the internet.”- By Doug Hagmann
      http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57929?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=065d65efce-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-065d65efce-291125633

    • SovereignMary

      Hey Michael – Open your eyes and do your research with your handy-dandy computer!
      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 12, 2013
      SCHUMER
      MEDIA SHIELD BILL
      CLEARS SENATE JUDICIARY
      COMMITTEE ON BIPARTISAN VOTE
      http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345700&

      • Michael

        SovereignMary,
        Are you done being rude and sarcastic? Just for your information when you are dealing with the general public on facebook it sincerely helps to include things like bill identifiers when making the following statement, “Senator Charles Schumer says that this bill [insert bill identifier] “balances the need for national security….” therefore, it is and can be readily verified by anyone to include those who do not do a lot of research work.
        Just for your information I finished reading the bill within 15 minutes of this page…. a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo which is enough to make any layperson skeptical. Needless to say, the average person will have one hell of a time trying to understand this baloney.

        One reply was enough but you saw fit to continue your arrogance for several replies which is what has coerced my answer here.
        I think we are on the same side but it may be difficult to tell. You are sincerely arrogant, sarcastic and did I mention rude? It truly helps, if you want support for your cause (or any cause for that matter) to not attack anyone that is requesting information is probably a good idea, you have a very nasty side to yourself. For the record, my comments were made to help this message get out to more people it is a valuable one but when the people you are trying to reach do not understand what you are saying or how to verify your information you may lose the battle because you are unwilling to talk to the people whom you are trying to help, what a shame!

        I am fighting to preserve and restore a nation and you are fighting your support?

  • Stephen

    Mrs. Feinstein and the rest of the cabal in Washington should all either resign now, or be tried as the treasonous traitors they are. I don’t even want to consider myself as an American anymore but rather a person of my own free-will living in the land that God has led me too. I don’t need her or any of the other parasites in ‘law’ to tell me what I can and cannot do. Speak the truth in season and out of season.. fear no man, for we ought to obet God rather than man.

  • George

    The usual culprits trying to implement their Talmudic world order.

  • Nathan Haubrich

    Has noone ever heard the saying that a new broom sweeps clean? Get all of the filth out of Washington and start fresh with new Congressmen and Senators and a President who is actually of, by and for the people!

    • Juan M. Gil

      we need to get people into the house of representatives, those are the ones that make the decisions

    • Tonya-Clay Davis

      why stop there? get rid of federal government altogether. You will never be able to fix it, it’s rotten from the inside.

    • BambiB

      American voters were too stupid to elect Ron Paul. Keep in mind that women are the majority, that they voted for Obama by a 20% gender gap over men, and that women have historically voted to increase debt, eagerly trading “freedom” for (the illusion of) “security”.

      Prior to women being given the vote, no state, nor the Federal Government, ran a significant debt year-to-year. AFTER women got the vote (which happened over a period of fifty years) each state, and the Federal Government, began to run deficits that were immediately out-of-control and have delivered us to the current $17 trillion crisis.

      There is no other factor, or collection of factors, that accounts for the sudden appearance of excessive debt following women getting the vote, because it happened in each case ONLY after they began voting.

      Why do women vote irresponsibly to foist today’s expenses on tomorrow’s unsuspecting citizens? One theory is that they’re more risk-averse than men, and are driven by biology to seek safety.

      Whatever the reason, the irony is that they are about to destroy the system that made it safe for them to open their mouths. Is it possible to educate women to their folly in time to save America?

      In a word (unfortunately) – no.

      So it will not suffice to make government “by and for the people”. That’s what you have now. The Founders knew that our form of government could not survive a citizenry that spent tomorrow’s money today… and yet, that is what women (as a majority – and not a few men) have voted for.

      The majority has spoken. America is doomed. Perhaps when the ashes wash away, a more contemplative form of female will arise – or men will not be so foolish as to grant women the franchise in America II.

  • Teresa

    Dianne Feinstein is a Senator from California who has been in Washington too long . . . . She is a New World Order Zionist Neocon who is systematically rewriting our U.S. Constitution negating the 1st & 2nd Amendments without our consent. She needs to go . . . . .

    • GaryTruth

      Feinstein wants to limit our freedoms.
      Schumer wants to limit our freedoms.
      Blumenthal wants to limit our freedoms.
      Bloomberg wants to limit our freedoms.
      Boxer wants to limit our freedoms.
      Lieberman wants to limit our freedoms.
      Emmanuel wants to limit our freedoms.

      The writing’s on the wall folks. They’re not even hiding it anymore.

      • Dave_Mowers

        Yeah well the greatest threat to “national security” would be a technically-advanced, manufacturing-capable, freedom-asserting, highly educate populace and they took care of that by ending real education and sending science and manufacturing jobs to China.

        I’d say our so-called “upper class” is in league with these scumbags and that they all are traitors to America.

      • Tim

        That’s correct, as do Obama, McCain, Graham, Holder, the Clintons, the Bushes, Pelosi, Reid, Cheney, etc.

  • harlybikrdad

    Diane Fernstein is a dangerous woman and shouldn’t be in the position she is, in a country of free souls, She has been in Congress way too long and is systemically trying to re-write what the constitution gave each and everyone of us! She needs to go!

    • Kevin Merck

      I know your comment means well, but the Constitution actually “gives” us nothing. It’s there to limit the federal government’s power over us.

      Our rights are “God Given”.

      The Constitution only attempts to enumerate those rights and makes it clear that the government has no right to take any of these rights from us and that includes rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

      • SovereignMary

        Well stated!

      • Robert Zraick

        I think it is more correct to say that the constitution enumerates the powers granted to government and the Bill of Rights forbids the government from interfering with our rights.
        The Constitution does not give the people anything. It protects what people have because they are human beings and have rights. Government can grant privileges but not rights. And it can remove privileges but not remove rights.
        The government has no rights. And it is the people who grant the privileges to the government. And the people can also take the privileges away from government.

      • Dave_Mowers

        The “Constitution” means literally the make-up of our Democracy so it gives us those rights as unalienable due to them being specifically designated that way in our founding principles of our system. It is the “constitution” of our rights on display by labeling them as a semantic statement you give others the opportunity to claim misunderstanding of verbiage when explaining intentions.

    • SovereignMary

      I too know that your comment meant well. But, the constitution does not “give” us our right. It was written to “protect” all the God given unalienable rights that we were all born with.

    • Tim

      Also remember, the Founders wrote the Constitution as people who lived through true tyranny. Diane Feinstein has never lived through tyranny and is rewriting the foundation that was created by the oppressed, in order to do the oppressing. The Founders writings were written as a message for us today. A message intended to travel through time to the descendants of Americans and warn us what rising tyranny would look like. Gentlemen and ladies. We are witnessing those prophetic warnings come to pass today. If you have not read the writings of the Founders, then please do.

      Krissanne Hall is a Constitutional Scholar and she does a series of speaking engagements across the country. She has several youtubes. If you don’t wish to read the writings of the Founders, then she is an excellent substitution as she quotes directly from the Founders constantly during her engagements and she is brilliant.

  • Andrew Jefferson

    Stop the world, I want to get off.

  • Serbia Strong

    Jew slag needs to die already.

    • SovereignMary

      Stop your race baiting!

      • Dave_Mowers

        I’m sorry what exactly is “Jewish heritage?” I didn’t know that, beyond the book of fairy tales called the Bible, Jews had been determined to be a separate race from everyone else? I personally have never seen a non-Aryan “Jew” so what defines those persons as “Jew” beyond “faith” in a phony Sky God?

    • Mikey

      Dude Jews are progun.

      • jason12321

        Yeah? Aside from the moronic racist element to that, Bloomberg is Jewish… so…

    • jason12321

      Not sure whether to vote down for idiotic racism or vote up for the rest being good. I vote up since technically you aren’t saying anything about Jews.

  • RonWillison

    Californians in her district will be showing her the exit signs in the next elections where her seat is on the line. Enough of this broad. “National Security Interests”=”Ruling Elite’s Who Grant Themselves Special PRIVILEGES and Powers”

    • SlimJim

      This is California. The entire state (no district, that’s the House). The urban voting blocks will notoriously continue to vote themselves into financial (an liberty) ruin while sucking on the government teat.

  • RandomJerk

    1st Amendment: I can write and say whatever I want to write or say.
    5th Amendment: I don’t have to be a witness against myself and tell you where I got my information.

  • smacca

    Is this lady Feinstien for anything that is legal and doesn’t limit the rights of the people she’s put there to protect? Who does she work for?

    • Tim

      Anonymous exposed that she’s recieved over 600 thousand dollars from the NSA just since 2007.
      She’s for banning all guns despite carrying one. California’s biggest criminal only cares about herself.

  • Big M

    Good God, when are the criminals in DC ever going to tire of trotting out this dog-eared crap about “national security,” and when will one of the lapdog presstitutes in the lamestream media ever demand that they define EXACTLY what they mean by it, since it’s used as a get-out-of-jail-free card every time someone demands that they show evidence of what they claim? You know, as in — let’s say it all together now, in four-part harmony — “We can’t tell or show you anything; it would jeopardize NATIONAL SECURITY.” What f***ing bullshit. And they’ve been getting clean away with it for over a decade now. ENOUGH!!!

  • Loki Luck III

    Schumer & Fienstein, “The Pathetic Duo!!”

  • Drdetroitdanchap

    The “BILL(listing) of RIGHTS” details RIGHTS held by ALL People. The 1st Amendment applies to EVERYBODY and EVERYBODY who writes a letter, column, essay for Public consumption IS a JOURNALIST. The Senate has no business or “RIGHT” to be attempting to restrict BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS with artificial “definitions”. ANY Person may keep a JOURNAL, and EVERY Person is a JOURNALIST.

  • HE3

    Reduction of liberty by redefinition of terms. That’s all that’s happening here.

  • Jonny Appleseed

    Before we need our Government to define what the press is we need force them to define to what “Homeland Security” is. Is homeland security meant to protect the American Citizens against an outer terroristic threat, or is it designed protect oppressive government from it’s citizens? With what they are buying it kind of looks like the later to me. We have a standing army here in the united states that’s as unacceptable as corrupt politicians like Senator Feinstein continuing their attack on our constitution God given rights.

    • JackLeo

      Amen! Well said.

  • Wyrdless

    The bill of rights should be a suicide pact. Without it, there is no freedom or justice, between that and family what else is worth dying for?

  • zamanu

    The only protection they need is the 5th Amendment. This is just another attempt by our “rulers” to shut those of us up who speak the truth.

  • Jason

    So another assault on our rights…

  • Tolas

    Zionist JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWS

    im sorry did i not make it clear enough for you guys

    how much longer will you slaves keep sucking the dick of the zionists and dieing for israeli interests and jewish banks and corporations before you Fake Christians start reclaiming your place in the world to establish true piece around the globe bringing together all races and religions

    • David

      Ok so you want to take a Constitutional discussion and turn it racist. You are an idiot!!!!! Why don’t you do all of us freedom loving individuals a favor and shut the hell up, or better yet switch sides. That way the damage you cause will help us and not support those trying to take our rights away. You are worse than Feinstein and the gang of 8 combined!!!!

    • Tim

      A twisted fact is that what Feinstein does and what you Nazis did are the same thing. The goal of both is/was to disarm everybody but themselves and graft a police state where nobody has any rights.

      She’s a Jew, sure, but she’s just like you.

  • James Lico

    Dianne Feinstein is good reason for term limits

  • Stacey

    It’s a not so sneaky anymore way of nibbling away at the first amendment!
    These people will never give up.
    Feinstein is a fascist.

  • beadstallcup

    America, wake up! Dianne Feinstein is an enemy of the people, if not the f’ing devil itself. This “goblin senator” needs to be removed from office. Removed!

  • BambiB

    Feinstein is also (in)famous for saying (regarding semi-automatic rifles), “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it.”

    So, she would infringe the Second Amendment, gut the First Amendment… voted for the “PATRIOT” act (attacking the Fourth and Fifth Amendments), voted for the NDAA “forever detention” provision to eliminate “habeas corpus” and demolish the Seventh and Eighth Amendments, routinely votes for bills that violate the 9th and 10th Amendments. Is there any part of the Bill of Rights Feinstein does NOT hate?

    I submit that Feinstein is the sort of tyrant that the Bill of Rights was intended to protect us against.

    • Tim

      Agree. Though when she was talking about picking up all guns, she was gloating that she wanted to ban all guns of every type (endgame for the gun-grabbers), after having already enacted a ban on semi-automatic rifles (doesn’t stop this evil witch from concealed carrying). She also supports the NSA, and had the nerve to claim Snowden violated the Constitution! It reminds me of when Umbridge on Harry Potter lied that she cared about Hogwarts when I think they tried to remove her as a teacher.

    • n10dkf

      Is there any part of the Bill of Rights Feinstein does NOT hate? Dianne Swinestein loves the 16th amendment, along with the Federal Reserve Act.

  • Tatiana Covington

    Who wants her sticking her nose into everyone else’s life? Ugly witch.

  • John W. O’Brien III

    this bitch is an evil cunt who HATES the United States of America, and is doing her absolute best to try to SHRED our Bill of Rights….

    some of us swore oaths to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC……

    Dianne Feinstein IS a DOMESTIC ENEMY of the Constitution.

  • KansasRain

    Ben and others… where do we sign up or deal with this appropriately? As those that took an oath to defend the constitution and are not doing such, The term is traitor. Perhaps recall votes, direct confrontation, or filing charges may be appropriate. The constitutions clearly starts as “We The People…”

  • J

    LINKS, OH GOD, WHERE ARE THE LINKS

    You can NEVER have too many links.

  • Oppelganger

    Press freedom is crucially important in these times but this entire article misrepresents the context of the “privilege” being considered by the Senate. The “privilege” is not a privilege to exercise a 1st Amendment right, it
    is a privilege from prosecution by the state for the non-divulgation of
    sources. Nothing in this bill would grant powers to the government to restrict the freedom to say, publish, or express anything. However if the source of a reporter/commentator/citizen journalist’s information aquired that information through allegedly illegal means, our court system can and does compel that person to divulge that source. These are two entirely separate processes- forcing journalists to divulge allegedly illegal behavior by their sources may deny them sources in the future but it doesn’t prevent them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to use the sources they have now to say what they want.

    The “privilege” then is a privilege from prosecution of reporters by the state for refusing to divulge their sources- not the conversion of a 1st Amendment right into something that requires a priori approval by the government as this article seems to suggest. The status quo as it stands forces journalists to go to jail if they
    refuse to honor requests from the federal court to divulge their
    sources. The issue is not “who has permission to speak and who does not.” It is “who has permission not to disclose their sources for classified information or not.”

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Feinstein and I’m all for protection of ALL sources from ALL journalists- “professional”/mainstream or otherwise- and I agree 100% with the dangers of limiting the scope of this privilege only to mainstream media outlets. But defeating this bill would undermine that goal. And refusing to extend the privilege to non-mainstream outlets doesn’t prohibit them from publishing.

    In future I hope you will do a better job of explaining exactly what it is you’re talking about so as not to do a disservice to your readership. Confusing an exemption of a constitutional right guaranteed to the citizenry with an exemption from a judicial process that in fact undermines that very right does not contribute to the expansion of this protection to all journalists, both MSM and bloggers, citizen journalists, etc… In the end, THAT is what we really should be advocating for and writing Congress about.

    • GlobalNonPartisan

      correct, but what happens when a new law is made whereby anybody without this ‘special privilege’ must divulge the sources as a matter of course for anything they write? in order to ‘protect the truth’ as i imagine they’d put it, everyone without the journalism license would have their opinions / writings scanned for ‘inaccuracy’ automatically. this is where the 1st amendment becomes a privilege, just a few yards further down the slippery slope we are about to embark upon.

      on the plus side, this will be the final nail in the coffin of mainstream media ultimately

      • Oppelganger

        I agree that that’s the danger of this privilege- if the line is drawn at those “mainstream” publications and only their “journalists” have the privilege of keeping their sources secret then it grants them more power. The question is whether it’s worse that MSM journalists can protect their sources while non-MSM journalists can’t, or whether it’s worse to protect the current status quo where nobody can protect their sources.

    • Kevin Merck

      ” forcing journalists to divulge **allegedly illegal** behavior by their sources may deny them sources in the future but it doesn’t prevent them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to use the sources they have now to say what they want.”

      You sound like a Nazi.

      We have managed to survive as a nation without this scumbag Feinstein and people like you for over 200 years. If we listen to people like you and this scumbag Frankenstein we won’t last another 20.

      • Oppelganger

        Yes- “allegedly” means “allegedly”- I’m not the one making allegations that require reporters to divulge their sources – state and federal prosecutors are. Judges are the ones jailing reporters for refusing to do so. That is the current status quo. So if you agree federal prosecutors and federal judges shouldn’t have the power to jail reporters for refusing to divulge sources, then you are in support of the creation of the privilege that this article is railing against. I don’t see how that makes us more free or helps support the freedom of expression. Ending this legislation allows judges and prosecutors to force ALL reporters to divulge their sources just by alleging illegality, even if those allegations have no basis in fact.

    • aenn

      By forcing reporters to divulge their sources you put a hamper on future sources. Not on that same source (they were already caught). If someone comes forward with information that was crutial (however illegally obtained) and they were prosecuted for it because the reporter tattled on them, OTHER people with information may choose not to come to the press with it. They’ll fear prosecution where normally their identity would be protected.

      • Oppelganger

        I agree with you 100%. No journalist should be forced to divulge their sources. But that is the situation we already have now. Courts now do not recognize journalists’ right to keep their sources secret in all cases. The problem with this article is that it mistakes the meaning of “privilege” and makes it sound like that situation is being created by this legislation.

        “Privilege” = a court’s recognition that reporters be free from actual or threatened prosecution for not divulging sources the govt. alleges they have to. If you think journalists should not have to divulge their sources then you support this privilege. The issue then is not whether the privilege should exist- “privilege” is what keeps them from being forced to reveal sources. I think we’d all agree that privilege is not a violation of the 1st amendment but rather a necessary corollary to it.

        The real issue is not whether it should exist or not, but whether it should be limited to “professional”/MSM journalists or should extend to any and all citizen journalists and alternative media outlets. I think it should extend to everyone, but I also think it’s better that most reporters have the privilege, than that none do. If this legislation fails then NO reporters are protected against being forced to divulge sources.

  • KaptainAmericana

    Elitists making legislation………….

    .

  • texastwin827

    And the only ones this Bill will consider as a “journalist” are those who do the politician’s bidding.

    • BenDoubleCrossed

      CAMPAIGN LAWS ARE BORN OF CORRUPTION

      1907 Tillman Act
      The first federal law in this arena, passed in 1907, was also a ban on corporate contributions to campaigns. The law was dubbed the Tillman Act, after its sponsor, South Carolina senator “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman. Tillman wrote and said little of his motives for sponsoring the ban on corporate contributions, but he hated President ¬Theodore Roosevelt and appears to have wanted to embarrass the president (who had relied heavily on corporate funding in his 1904 election campaign). Tillman’s racial politics also clearly contributed to his interest in controlling corporate spending: Many corporations opposed the racial segregation that was at the core of Tillman’s political agenda. Corporations did not want to pay for two sets of rail cars, double up on restrooms and fountains, or build separate entrances for customers of different races. They also wanted to take advantage of inexpensive black labor, while Tillman sought to keep blacks out of the work force.

      Corporations supported Republicans, and Tillman — a Democrat, like most post-war Southern whites — often bragged of his role in perpetrating voter fraud and intimidation in the presidential election of 1876 in order to overthrow South Carolina’s Republican reconstruction government. It is clear, then, that Tillman was no “good government” reformer; and far from being born of lofty ideals, federal campaign-finance regulations were, from their inception, tied to questionable efforts to gain partisan advantage.

      THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT

      Prior to President Nixon’s second term, some of our nation’s largest newspapers found themselves in federal court losing antitrust suits which accused them of purchasing financially troubled regional newspapers and then pretending to compete with them while rigging prices.

      The Newspaper Preservation Act was touted as a relief measure to allow multiple newspapers competing in the same market to cut costs, thus ensuring that no one paper could have supremacy in the market by driving the other(s) out of business. However, mounting evidence suggests the passage of the Act was less about protecting editorial diversity within community newspaper markets than about inflating the profit margins of national newspaper chains.[3] By quietly and informally taking on some behaviors of a cartel, large newspaper chains were able to sustain artificially high profits while driving independent newspapers out of business (or forcing them to sell their stake to a chain).[3] Note that many of the papers listed in the sections below have the same few ownership groups. In fact, President Richard M. Nixon initially opposed the passage of the act (as had his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson) as being antithetical to the essential practices and character of free market capitalism. He reversed himself upon receiving a letter from Richard E. Berlin, CEO of the Hearst chain of newspapers and magazines.[4] In the 1969 letter, Berlin intimated that failure of the law to pass would carry political consequences, and hinted that support from Nixon would conversely help the President and his allies. The Nixon Administration supported the Act’s passage, and in the 1972 Presidential Campaign, every Hearst newspaper endorsed Nixon for reelection.

      Nixon reversed his position and convinced Congress to pass the Newspaper Preservation Act.

      Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

      Wasn’t Nixon guilty of accepting a bribe and the Hearst chain of newspapers guilty of coordination and corruption? And what is the difference between editorials, slanted news stories and political ads? The newly minted campaign laws should have chastised the 4th estate as well as Nixon.

      Instead the Federal Election Campaign Reform Act exempted corporate media from campaign laws and created the “State Approved Press”:2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term “expenditure” does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

      WHO IS BEHIND CAMPAIGN REFORM

      The 24 hour news cycle has been around since the advent of television. The fact there have been 10 – 15 news stories every day for months concerning the evils of the Citizens United decision prove this is just the latest astro-turfed crusade.

      Campaign finance reform has never been among the top ten issues of concern to the American voter. Previous pushes for campaign reform were spear headed by the ‘exempt’ corporate media and astro turfed by charitable trusts.

      Free Speech Needs Jerry Maguire
      By Ryan Sager Published 03/18/2005 – http://amendment10.tripod.com/jerrymaguire.htm

      Excerpt:
      That’s because campaign-finance reform is not a “movement” as its proponents have claimed, it is a lobby — funded and orchestrated by eight very liberal foundations which fooled Congress and the American people into believing that the front groups they set up were grassroots organizations.

      Senator McConnell Smelled the Pew in 2001

      Senator McConnell exposed the charitable trusts behind BCRA in the Congressional Record of Arpil 2, 2001.

      The following is excerpted from three pages of the Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 107th Congress, First Session, Washington, Monday, April 2, 2001, Vol. 147, No. 46:

      http://amendment10.tripod.com/mcpew.htm

      BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM
      ACT OF 2001— Resumed
      The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
      The Senator from Kentucky.
      Mr. MCCONNELL.

      Who wins?
      As I said the other day, who wins are people such as Jerome Kohlberg. This is the billionaire who has decided this is going to be his legacy. This is the full page ad he ran in the Washington Post the other day on behalf of this legislation. I suspect a lot of the lobbyists out in the hall right off the Senate floor are either on his payroll directly or indirectly. People such as Jerome Kohlberg and the big charitable foundations are underwriting the reform movement, hand in hand with the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times, which have editorialized on this subject an average of once every 6 days over the last 27 months.

      At least in the Senate, they are going to get their way shortly, but this new world won’t take a penny out of politics, not a penny. It will all be spent. It just won’t be spent by the parties. It will be spent by the Jerome Kohlbergs of the world and all of the interest groups out there. As everyone knows, the restrictions on those interest groups will be struck down in court, if we get that far.

      Welcome to the brave new world where the voices of parties are quieted, the voices of billionaires are enhanced, the voices of newspapers are enhanced, and the one entity out there in America, the core of the two-party system, that influence is dramatically reduced. I strongly urge our colleagues to vote against this legislation. It clearly moves in the wrong direction.

  • Sabrina

    Feinstein is a scab.

  • n10dkf

    Dual citizenship Dianne Swinestein, a filthy Zionist pig who, has committed treason against America with this unconstitutional legislation, needs to be sent to IsRealHell, where her real loyalty is. This disgusting harridan wants to shut down anyone that doesn’t agree with her NWO agenda. Folks, we need to stop AIPAC from running our government.

    • Holliman

      Please consider your point is not really taken with blame, even i understand some of your feelings on the citizenship.

  • Guest

    Sen. Feinstein is a Rothschild sock puppet. She should be replaced by someone who will honor the Oath of Office. She’s too far gone.

  • Stuffinpup

    Why should Ms. Feinstein worry about “real reporters” when she’s not even a “real Senator”. She’s a Rothschild sock-puppet.

  • JAYinNH

    Unbelievable, at the same time the president is bypassing federal law increasing the shipments of arms to alqaeda uncontested, these puppets are focussing on silencing the alternative media.
    What happened in Colorado last week needs to happen in Washington today.
    P.S. Ben I would love to contribute to your show.

  • Stephanie Snyder Staker

    The progressives just won’t stop their agenda, will they? Folks, we must start standing up and screaming! We must demand that those who agree with us in the Senate and in Congress DO something rather than just complain about it. I don’t know about you but I am sick of these do-nothings! Obama has broken law after law and no one has done a darn thing about it. Here we have senators who think our First Amendment rights must be “defined” – since when? This infuriates me.

  • federico

    In my humble opinion (from the land down under) would not Lady Feinstein’s view of how people should be treaded, lean closer to Nazism than even to fascism? If i’m remotely close in my assessment of the lady, how the hell did this person ever get voted into such a position where she has a voice; and is it likely to happen again?

    • leslymill

      It boggles the average American mind also……

  • John

    What is the bill number. Journalists reference their sources….?

  • Cheryl Newcomb

    Two Zionist pigs, Feinstein and Shumer. They should both be run out of Washington and back to Israel. If they’re not trying to shut us up with garbage like this, they’re trying to disarm us!!! NWO shills!!

  • BenDoubleCrossed

    In their latest assault on our “free speech and free press rights” Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Dick Durbin are attempting to define reporters and journalist as paid employees of the Main Stream Media.

    The obvious response to senator Durbin and senator Feinstein is that in our nation’s first 184 years, before the so called “press exemption”, we understood that every citizen is a reporter or a journalist!

    Amendment 1: “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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    State Representatives to the Constitutional Convention demanded a 1st Amendment to insure a central government did not trample freedoms found in their State Constitutions. Only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment and Federal Campaign Laws do!

    Kentucky Bill of Rights
    Section 1

    Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.

    Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

    Section 8

    Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

    Lovell v. City of Griffin SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 303 U.S. 444 Argued February 4, 1938 Decided March 28, 1938

    The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated.

    If speech, press, assembly and petition are the tools of political campaigns then it is clear that Federal Campaign laws are abridgements of the rights of citizens and political parties, PACS and 501Cs.

    Please note what Senator Mitch McConnell said in his letter http://amendment10.tripod.com/mitch4.htm

    “Had the senate debate on the McCain Feingold bill advanced to the point of amendments, among the first I offered would have been one to delete section 431 (9) (B) (i). Whenever the opportunity presents itself in the future, I look forward to doing just that. I believe that it would be an enlightening discussion.

    Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a “special interest” by any definition, and heavily engaged in the “issue advocacy” and “independent expenditure” realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it. To illustrate the absurdity of this special exemption the media enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a candidate 60 days before and election. This is patently absurd”

    The so called ‘Press Exemption’ section 431 (9) (B) (i) exempts U.S. and foreign owned newspapers and cable networks from “Federal Election Laws” which restrict the speech and press rights of every U.S. citizen, political party and political organization! Effectively the press exemption creates a Pravda like State approved press!

    Did senator McConnell mean what he said?

    If liberals can propose legislation to further restrict our “speech and press rights” is it unreasonable to expect a champion of the “first amendment” like senator McConnell to introduce legislation to restore our speech and press rights?

    Will senator McConnell act on his beliefs? Will he introduce or cosponsor legislation to amend the “press exemption” to include every U.S. citizen and allow us to freely communicate our thoughts and opinions?

    I am encouraging citizens to call their Senators and Congressman and demand they add ‘citizens and citizen’s groups’ to the language of the press exemption. Politicians cannot afford to publically declare citizens should have inferior rights and including citizens and citizens groups eviscerates the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act without requiring repeal.

    In the interim conservative groups should consider incorporating as media periodicals to circumvent most unconstitutional campaign laws, rather than applying to the IRS for non-profit status to avoid a few.

  • JohnyD

    Senator Feinstein is old, I hope she gets older soon……

  • Brosky

    Great article Ben! All of these would-be tyrants in DC need to be looking for new jobs at the next possible electoral opportunity.

  • Dawn

    Couple this with the 2013 NDAA’s lift of the propaganda ban and it’s buh bye Ben Swann, Matt Drudge and Susan Possel,
    and hello Ministry of Truth!

  • SlimJim

    I think she is now clinically insane. It’s one thing to be inside the beltway and so stinking rich that you are completely disconnected with your constituency (even in Cali). She has taken it to a whole new level. Then again, she’s not alone. Reid, McCain, Graham, among others are right there with her, just sitting on different loony seats.

  • Rob Dies

    That’s the 1st amendment gone then. And, once they can say who is the press and who isn’t, what will then stop them from dictating the message? The first amendment is the entire reason the colonies broke away from the crown! Do away with that and we may as well become British.

  • real laplaine

    Pathetic. First the Patriot Act which allowed intrusive surveillance of American citizens by its intelligence community, and now another direct hit on the freedom of speech. Feinstein has her hands deep in the pockets of someone, or she’s simply anti-social, and anti-freedom – either way, I hope American’s wake up and smell the coffee and realize that their constitution is being spit on at every turn. What happened to “America – the land of the free?”

  • scooterKat

    Hey Feinstein, you CUNT, ever hear of FREE SPEECH?

  • Fuller_Transport

    What is the Bill # or name so I can urge my Congressman to Vote NO?

  • http://TheNewsDoctors.com/ Eric Dubin

    Big Government wants to regulate the “shield law” status to protect
    against leaks and national security. But there’s one major flaw in this
    argument: who the heck is going to leak to a small-time blogger and
    his audience of 20 people? We need to change the terms of this debate
    because the current discussion and justifications are a distraction from
    the primary issue of speech rights in general. Once regulation starts,
    it only invites further regulation.

    TND Proposal: Definition Of Who Is A Journalist

    Eric Dubin, Managing Editor, The News Doctors

    http://thenewsdoctors.com/tnd-proposal-definition-of-who-is-a-journalist/

    • Oppelganger

      Thank you for properly identifying the real issue here as well as a potential solution. Less is more, but there still needs to be protection of sources in our legal system.

  • Michelle Blake

    Dianne Feinstein give me the creeps : 0
    She’s 1 scary looking person! If beauty is only skin deep then this person’s souls must be HORRIFYING. Its crazy how many so called Jews are in positions of power in our corporate government–it certainly isn’t coincidence.

    • Michelle Blake

      Hey Ben U’r doing such s great job in bringing us REAL NEWS!
      Sincerely Mr. Swan I Thank U : )
      No doubt u’r 1 of the last few true journalists left in so-called main stream media. Got anymore new info. on the Fast & Furious /Benghazi scandals? I really think they’re related–my research show this as proven fact — our gov. has been dealing secretly in arms since Reagan’s Contra yrs. & yet they want to disarm the American public? What’s wrong with this picture??? : (

      • Michelle Blake

        My bad I forgot 2 mention the gov.dealing in DRUGS 2!

  • AFREEMAN7

    Thanks Ben, for having the integrity to take a position on this key issue!

    It is time to regain our First Amendment Rights it
    is time to replace bad legislation with good legislation!

    Newspaper and broadcast businesses are exempt from
    campaign finance laws!

    Contact your U.S. senators and U.S. representatives
    and insist they amend 2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i) to include every U.S. citizen and
    group of U.S. citizens in the “press exemption”!

    2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i) should be amended to
    read:

    The terms “expenditure”, coordination and
    “contribution” do not include any handbill, flyer, broadside, political
    endorsement, news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any United
    States Citizen or group of United States Citizens, broadcasting station,
    newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication,

    Add New Definitions to F.E.C.A.:

    “Press” means any Citizen of the United States that
    engages in any form of public communication.

    “Media” means any Citizen of the United States that
    engages in any form of public communication.

    Journalist means any Citizen of the United States
    that engages in any form of public communication.

    Reporter means any Citizen of the United States
    that engages in any form of public communication.

    “Newspaper” means any form of printed material that
    includes any advertisement or other information for the purpose of public
    distribution, including information printed on paper, billboards, signs, fliers,
    web pages, and other electronic print material.

    Instructions for the federal and supreme
    courts:

    The purpose of this legislation is to guarantee
    every “Living Person” who is a citizen of these United States the same “free
    press rights” and protections that “legal persons” taking the form of newspaper
    and broadcast businesses and their employees have.

  • SovereignMary

    These idiots believe they have the privilege to “SERVE US UP!”

  • Darren Pollok

    The
    problem is we’ve already accepted limitations to our Constitutional
    rights, and they know this. We’ve accepted gun control laws where the
    Second Amendment’s words “shall not be infringed” seems pretty clear to
    me.
    We’ve accepted random police checkpoints where the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizure seems apparent.
    Why
    should the First Amendment be special? We have a government that is
    unconstitutional to it’s very core. The Obamacare Supreme Court vote
    should have been a huge wake-up call to us all, yet it was met with
    little opposition.
    May we have a moment of silence, for the Constitution is certainly dead in the nation.

  • AFREEMAN7

    Thanks BEN

    Congress Shall Make No Law:

    It is time to wake up and pitch this attack on the
    First Amendment back at the these constitutional scoff laws.

    A “free press” is the right of every U.S.citizen.
    Every U.S. citizen is a reporter and a journalist.

    Congress has exempted “newspaper and broadcast
    businesses” from campaign finance laws that restrict “We The Peoples” “Free Press Rights”!

    In the 184 years prior to Watergate “We The People”
    could “pool our money” to pay the cost of communicating our political ideas, opinions and endorsements without
    forming a “political action committee” or
    reporting our political activities to what is suppose to be our
    “government”!

    It is time to regain our First Amendment Rights it
    is time to replace bad legislation with good legislation!

    Contact your U.S. senators and U.S.
    representatives and insist they amend 2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i) to include every U.S. citizen and group of U.S. citizens in the
    “press exemption”!

    2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i) should be amended to
    read:

    The terms “expenditure”, coordination and “contribution” do not
    include any handbill, flyer, broadside, political
    endorsement, news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any United
    States Citizen or group of United States
    Citizens, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication,

    Add New Definitions to
    F.E.C.A.:

    “Press” means any Citizen of the United States that engages in
    any form of public communication.

    “Media”
    means any Citizen of the United States that engages in any form of public
    communication.

    Journalist means any
    Citizen of the United States that engages in any form of public communication.

    Reporter means any Citizen of the
    United States that engages in any form of public communication.

    “Newspaper” means any form of printed material
    that includes any advertisement or other information for the purpose of public distribution, including
    information printed on paper, billboards, signs,
    fliers, web pages, and other electronic print material.

    Instructions for
    the federal and supreme courts:

    The purpose of this legislation is to
    guarantee every “Living Person” who is a citizen of these United States the same “free press rights” and protections that
    “legal persons” taking the form of newspaper and
    broadcast businesses and their employees have.

  • BenDoubleCrossed

    In their latest assault on our “free speech and free press rights” Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Dick Durbin are attempting to define reporters and journalist as paid employees of the Main Stream Media.

    The obvious response to senator Durbin and senator Feinstein is that in our nation’s first 184 years, before the so called “press exemption”, we understood that every citizen is a reporter or a journalist!

    Amendment 1: “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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    State Representatives to the Constitutional Convention demanded a 1st Amendment to insure a central government did not trample freedoms found in their State Constitutions. Only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment and Federal Campaign Laws do!

    Kentucky Bill of Rights
    Section 1
    Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.

    Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

    Section 8
    Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

    Lovell v. City of Griffin SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 303 U.S. 444 Argued February 4, 1938 Decided March 28, 1938

    The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated.

    If speech, press, assembly and petition are the tools of political campaigns then it is clear that Federal Campaign laws are abridgements of the rights of citizens and political parties, PACS and 501Cs.
    Please note what Senator Mitch McConnell said in his letter http://amendment10.tripod.com/mitch4.htm

    “Had the senate debate on the McCain Feingold bill advanced to the point of amendments, among the first I offered would have been one to delete section 431 (9) (B) (i). Whenever the opportunity presents itself in the future, I look forward to doing just that. I believe that it would be an enlightening discussion.

    Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a “special interest” by any definition, and heavily engaged in the “issue advocacy” and “independent expenditure” realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it. To illustrate the absurdity of this special exemption the media enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a candidate 60 days before and election. This is patently absurd”

    The so called ‘Press Exemption’ section 431 (9) (B) (i) exempts U.S. and foreign owned newspapers and cable networks from “Federal Election Laws” which restrict the speech and press rights of every U.S. citizen, political party and political organization! Effectively the press exemption creates a Pravda like State approved press!

    Did senator McConnell mean what he said?

    If liberals can propose legislation to further restrict our “speech and press rights” is it unreasonable to expect a champion of the “first amendment” like senator McConnell to introduce legislation to restore our speech and press rights?

    Will senator McConnell act on his beliefs? Will he introduce or cosponsor legislation to amend the “press exemption” to include every U.S. citizen and allow us to freely communicate our thoughts and opinions?

    I am encouraging citizens to call their Senators and Congressman and demand they add ‘citizens and citizen’s groups’ to the language of the press exemption. Politicians cannot afford to publically declare citizens should have inferior rights and including citizens and citizens groups eviscerates the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act without requiring repeal.

    In the interim conservative groups should consider incorporating as media periodicals to circumvent most unconstitutional campaign laws, rather than applying to the IRS for non-profit status to avoid a few.

  • BenDoubleCrossed

    Use Downsize DC to copy and paste the text below to your Congressman and Senators:

    https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/atrocities/
    ————————————————————————————-
    Should you have fewer rights than The New York Times?

    I deny my consent to “government” criminality.

    One really bad example of such criminality is when you deny me my Constitutional rights. And the current case of this comes from the “Free Flow of Information Act” (S. 987).

    This bill is also an example of how you guys screw things up even when you’re trying to do something good. The bill’s purpose is to protect journalists from revealing sources. But does it really do that?

    * It applies to “professional” journalists, meaning salaried employees of a legacy media institution
    * Despite a recent compromise, others, such as amateur bloggers, are only protected by a judge’s discretion
    * And protections do NOT apply to “national security” cases

    This means

    * Amateur bloggers who expose State crimes may or may not be protected from subpoenas and other court orders
    * ANY journalist who exposes the gravest State crimes – those committed by the National Security State – isn’t protected and cannot protect their sources

    Even worse
    * It’s easy to get around the law, as feds could come up with any excuse to seize and search a journalist’s computer — a child pornography accusation comes to mind
    * This law’s a slippery slope that could lead to licensing journalists

    That would turn freedom of the press from a human right protected by the Constitution into a “privilege.”

    I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS!

    In reality, S. 987 sells a diluted benefit. It’s likely that it’s primary legacy, should it pass, is that I will lose another freedom my First Amendment press rights. Defeat it, or confirm you have no legitimacy left.