PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.
While it is extremely dangerous to require a license to write your opinion and going around to ask people questions to research a story I do understand that there has to be some kind of authorisation for use in the cases where journalists are given privileged access to information, press conferences, police barriers etc. However such an authorisation should only be concerned with legitimising the person as a journalist and should be based on objective parameters like having a degree in journalism or working for a news organisation. Things like "moral character" should not enter into the equation at all.
The poor complain; they always do
But that’s just idle chatter
Our system brings reward to all
At least all those who matter.
Organizations that want to limit access to certain areas or information have, or should have, policies in place and have the means to enforce those policies. If they do not, it's their problem.
Lying and using fraudulant acts to get to the backstage area at a concert is not exactly a real big deal, from a state security POV, and using this kinid of anecdote to try to justify implementing licensing of the press is stupid .
If you do not think they are handling access now, try to get into the Tuesday press briefing from Press Secretary Gibbs. Please let us know how that works out for you.
I'm a little curious -- what part of "Congress shall make no law" does this knuckleheaded Congressman (and anybody who didn't vote "no," for that matter) not understand?
When and why are only relevant when you're dealing with a gray area where the law needs to be interpreted because it wasn't speciic enough, or when the law violates some basic principle of natural law.
The First Amendment is pretty damned specific.
That's all I need to know.
200 year old Consitution or not, this is a REALLY bad idea. Giving the government the power to issue licenses for journalists will inevitably lead to a dangerous slippery slope. What scares me the most is not the reason why the government would aprrove someone's license, but the reason why it wouldn't.
"Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke
By the way, I realize that the OP references an article claiming that licensing would be voluntary and not required for being a journalist.
Nevertheless, the question is should you need a license.
Has it occured to any of your "yes" people or "other" people to wonder how, in an environment where a journalistic license is required for reporting the news, the government would go about enforcing that requirement?
What would qualify as reporting the news, anyhow?
Wouldn't a licensing requirement discourage the press from being critical of the government, since it would be the government issuing the license?
What if someone got their hands on solid evidence of a government scandal -- who could report it?
I was not speaking of a license to be a journalist, but a certificate/license more along the lines of a diploma, basically saying "we have tested this journalist's ability to pursue their field, and find that they are in step with the standards we set for such".
A journalist would be able to practice their calling without such, but if they had it they would be considered more reputable (depending on the circles they worked in, of course).
Now, obviously a degree in journalism does this to an extent, but I was thinking more along the lines of a entity that constantly checks up on them, perhaps yearly tests/examination of work/critique…
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.