Skip to main content

View Diary: Sens. Feinstein and Durbins attack on citizen journalism (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Am I missing something? (6+ / 0-)

    Every U.S. Senator took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.  The Constitution contains the following:

    "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 new proposals do not support and defend this part of the Constitution.  Are some Democrats becoming Republicans in that the only part of the Bill of Rights they're willing to defend is the 2nd Amendment?

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:43:12 PM PST

    •  What's a "Constitution" ??? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik, Losty

      I think that Republicanism is revealing itself as a personality disorder, not so much an ideology." -- Naomi Klein

      by AllanTBG on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 04:50:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The question is... Who's the Press? (0+ / 0-)

      Anyone with camera-phone? And a blogspot account?

      I have mixed feelings about this. It's tricky.

      •  On the face of it it is. But surely most (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        people - or jurors, as this will be the important group - will be able to tell the difference between someone that has a camera-phone and posts a picture and someone that has a blog on which s/he posts with some frequency.

        •  let's talk about that camera phone for a moment. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Kresnik, jethrock

          Speaking here as someone who does not use a cellphone, does not like cellphones, and has a bias in favor of the police:

          More than once in the last couple of years, someone with a camera phone has posted on YouTube, a video of police misconduct.   In one instance it involved an officer shooting a suspect who later died.  

          Those videos immediately caused a furor of public opinion, leading to investigations and to trials.  

          The people who posted those videos have never written an article for publication in their lives.  


          Are you willing to say that you do not wish to accord them the same protection that you would accord Markos or some writer for a newspaper, or some television news crew that got exactly the same footage and ran it on the TV news?  

          Or are you willing to reconsider your opinion?  

      •  not WHO but WHAT. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, OHdog, James Kresnik, Losty, jethrock

        It's not about WHO is a journalIST.

        It's about WHAT is journalISM.

        It's not about the PERSON, it's about the ACTIVITY.  

        Anyone can do the activity.  

        That's the point.  

        That's how it should be.

        And that's why we're red with rage about this bill.  

        Consider the people who used their camera phones and YouTube accounts to post videos of police misconduct during arrests.

        Those videos were anonymous, they were unpaid, they were posted on public internet sites:  and that did not make one stinking milligram of difference in their validity as journalistic activity.  

        Those videos were important because they caused a major stink and got a lot of attention on the problem really really fast.  

        And I say this as someone who has an a-priori bias in favor of the police most of the time:  Those videos were legitimate journalistic activity even though they were posted by people who had probably never written an article for publication in their lives.

        It's not about the PERSON.  It's about the ACT.  

        Ideas stand or fall on their OWN merits, not on the merits of the PERSON who promotes them.   Journalistic work does as well.  

      •  Is a journalist a journalist only when (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        serving in the employ of his or her sponsor? At 5PM, do hourly people who are 'off the clock' lose their "protected status"?

        I have 'press credentials' from when I worked for the local NPR station. There's no 'expiry date' on them, and I could flash them to get access I guess if I wanted to.

        But I was a volunteer at the station, and never got paid.

        What was my status then, 25 years ago?
        What's my status now?

        Do I have to prove I get paid in order to get protections guaranteed by freedom of the press? Must I use my real name when I report? [I did then.]

        Try to make it real, compared to what.

        by shpilk on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:49:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't agree with the Fienstien/Durbin (0+ / 0-)

          amendment... especially after re-reading it.

          Sometimes I have to read things twice to get them :)

          But my "mixed feelings" due stem from my belief that their should be privacy protections as well as "freedom of the press"

          Unfortunately people abuse both of these freedoms... therefore it's tricky.

          Some of the ambush journalism and paparazzi style stalking tactics can be downright sleazy.

          So my point is that I do believe in protections for both the individual and the press.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (63)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Climate Change (26)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Science (22)
  • Environment (22)
  • Labor (18)
  • Law (18)
  • Spam (18)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site