Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  No, because they could write that tier in. (0+ / 0-)

    That they didn't would mean "salaried" = "any".

    Show Dems in R-Leaning Districts Who Voted For Health Care, Against Stupak: We've Got Your Back

    by Adam B on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:29:40 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So you are saying there are laws on the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      books that spell out rights based upon tiers of compensation? I had no idea this was possible.

      Maybe in a dictatorship, somewhere.
      But here in the US, or even in Western Europe?

      I'm flabbergasted, trying to wrap my mind around the concept.

      How can a guaranteed right of not being a journalist, but of performing the function of journalism, i.e. a function of free speech itself be subject to titration based upon compensation?

      Seriously, if you have examples of decisions or case law, I'd like to see them, because I've never heard or seen of anything like this.

      What's next? Is art going to be judged upon how much money the artist makes, and art that doesn't sell be deemed not worthy of 1st Amendment protections, too?

      Try to make it real, compared to what.

      by shpilk on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:00:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a fair question (0+ / 0-)

        First off, of course, this regards the ability to withhold testimony/evidence from prosecution, and not the right to gather and publish.

        As for the "where else do these distinctions weigh in?", all sorts of laws are premised on whether one is acting within the scope of one's employment.

        Show Dems in R-Leaning Districts Who Voted For Health Care, Against Stupak: We've Got Your Back

        by Adam B on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:05:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What of Besty Devine? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, James Kresnik

          She, to my knowledge was/is not employed in any function as a journalist or blogger. She is an author in her own right, but her background is an engineer.

          Yet she served the function of journalist in the PhoneGate case in NH, covering what many of the Boston and NH media deemed to be a non story, actually going to court, taking notes, speaking with people to get parts of the story she can then blog about.

          Since she's not compensated for being a journalist, it appears Feinstein and Durbin deem her not worthy of the same protections and guarantees as, oh .. let's use Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

          What a concept!

          Try to make it real, compared to what.

          by shpilk on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:14:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree. It's a stupid distinction. (0+ / 0-)

            But many stupid laws are also constitutional.

            Show Dems in R-Leaning Districts Who Voted For Health Care, Against Stupak: We've Got Your Back

            by Adam B on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:15:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  that, my friend, is exactly the point. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shpilk, James Kresnik

            If someone is earning an income from a publishing entity, this means that their boss can dictate what they may and may not write for that entity.

            Once you get money into the picture, the whole reptile-brain thing kicks in about people protecting their money rather than their rights.

            Journalistic activity that is not tied to money is not subject to any of that bullshit.  

            Nothing scares the powers that be worse than the idea that they can't put strings on people via money.  

      •  in effect, yes. in principle, hell no. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, James Kresnik

        One of the guys on progressive radio had an interesting definition of liberals and conservatives yesterday:  he said that conservatives want to create a caste system.  

        We already see all kinds of ramifications of this.  

        Now strictly speaking, tiered rights as applied to Constitutional rights, will not stand.  However each case requires going all the way through to the Supreme Court, which many are reluctant to do when the court is packed with righties.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site