• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VIDEO]

Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

That guy is a Dick, and I can say that because that's his name.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Look at the media trying to shield itself while throwing the rest of us under the bus. A media shield law, even if it actually prevented abuses based on things like the patriot act, gives the government the ability to define what media is, and though that they can apply that standard only to state approved media sources and persecute anyone without state approval. This means that under a democrat president MSNBC would be the only media and under a republican it would be faux news. Everyone else would be considered terrorists and enemies of national security for trying to inform the public of information the administration would find inconvenient or harmful.

Everyone should let their representatives know that this is not acceptable and we need to go back to full protection for the media and speech from government oppression. The government should never be telling us what media is acceptable. yes, this should even include party propaganda like MSNBC and faux news.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

I read the OP article and I get the impression that this was posed (validly) as a question, not a statement. That makes quite a bit off difference.

If I were to ask does legal abortion apply up until age 16, would I be suggesting we abort 15 year olds? Or would I be suggesting protection for them?

We have thousands of politician blathering around the clock. If we extract any words that can be made controversial, it seems we do. Scare 'em and sell /em?
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

I can't see the video right now but if Durbin really said this, he is an idiot and a dick.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

TheNextEra said:
I can't see the video right now but if Durbin really said this, he is an idiot and a dick.
Click to expand...

You need a video to determine if he is an idiot and a dick? :)
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

The only valid answer is yes bloggers must be covered under a media shield law.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

TheNextEra said:
I can't see the video right now but if Durbin really said this, he is an idiot and a dick.
Click to expand...

Dick Durbin has been a 1st class dick ever since he compared American servicemen to Nazis, on the floor of Congress, no less.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Shadow Serious said:
The only valid answer is yes bloggers must be covered under a media shield law.
Click to expand...

Everyone should be covered under the media shield law.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Durbin has always been a weasel, which seems common in the state of Illinois.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Good grief. Freedom of the Press refers to the right to print/publish/distribute information. It applies to EVERYONE.

Any "Media Shield Law" that attempts to provide certain additional protections to one group of citizens but not others is at the very least unwise and I would hope unconstitutional.

I don't care if the information comes from an article in the NYT, an evening news broadcast, a blog, a tweet, or sign at a lemonade stand. If two people divulge the same information, there is no reason to treat them differently under the law.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Durbin, in typical Democratic fashion, glosses over the question posed to him and, instead talks about that which interests him...the ability to pick and choose to whom the First Amendment applies.

It really disturbs me to agree with or like anything tererun says, but in this case she is correct. The government should never have the power to decide who is allowed First Amendment privileges. The Constitution applies to ALL American citizens.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

American said:
Durbin has always been a weasel, which seems common in the state of Illinois.
Click to expand...

Man, you've got that right! You show me an honest, level headed politician with integrity in Illinois and I'll show you an unsuccessful Illinois politician. Been that way since 1876.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

One has to wonder just how many here denouncing Durbin also denounced wikileaks and that they are not considered worthy of protection of the 1st amendment.....
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

I have no love at all for Durbin, but it's a legitimate question. This wouldn't affect constitutional protections which every citizen if entitled to, but law made by congress to specifically augment the constitution where it comes to the press. It's perfectly legitimate to define what the "Press" is. I too am unsure laws designed to protect press should also cover bloggers.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

clownboy said:
I have no love at all for Durbin, but it's a legitimate question. This wouldn't affect constitutional protections which every citizen if entitled to, but law made by congress to specifically augment the constitution where it comes to the press. It's perfectly legitimate to define what the "Press" is. I too am unsure laws designed to protect press should also cover bloggers.
Click to expand...

We don't need any law protecting any media. The 1st Amendment already does this.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Kal'Stang said:
We don't need any law protecting any media. The 1st Amendment already does this.
Click to expand...

Not so much. There are enhanced protections not in the constitution that we have added by law. The constitution is mum on the naming of sources, and it's not at all covered by the First. This is a feature detailed by law. Much of the media shield law is additonal protection for the press.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Kal'Stang said:
One has to wonder just how many here denouncing Durbin also denounced wikileaks and that they are not considered worthy of protection of the 1st amendment.....
Click to expand...

As far as I know the owner of wikileaks is not...and never has been...a citizen of the United States Of America.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Kal'Stang said:
One has to wonder just how many here denouncing Durbin also denounced wikileaks and that they are not considered worthy of protection of the 1st amendment.....
Click to expand...

It all depends on how he got the information. If it was handed to him without paying for it, or by stealing it himself, then he has done nothing illegal in publishing it. Btw, saying he's a **** for publishing it is absolutely acceptable too.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Mycroft said:
As far as I know the owner of wikileaks is not...and never has been...a citizen of the United States Of America.
Click to expand...

Irrelevent as the 1st Amendment is a restriction on the government. Not people. As such the Federal Government cannot restrict ANYONE in regards to any of the Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Be they citizens or not. People often forget this little fact.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

mac said:
It all depends on how he got the information. If it was handed to him without paying for it, or by stealing it himself, then he has done nothing illegal in publishing it. Btw, saying he's a **** for publishing it is absolutely acceptable too.
Click to expand...

Last I knew he never paid for the information he got, nor did he steal it, Manning did and he did it willingly.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Kal'Stang said:
Last I knew he never paid for the information he got, nor did he steal it, Manning did and he did it willingly.
Click to expand...

Then of the two, Manning is the only guilty party. Manning was not his sole provider, though.
 
Re: Durbin not sure if bloggers should be ‘entitled to constitutional protection’ [VI

Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevent as the 1st Amendment is a restriction on the government. Not people. As such the Federal Government cannot restrict ANYONE in regards to any of the Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Be they citizens or not. People often forget this little fact.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Be realistic, eh? If the wikileaks owner ever came to the US, First Amendment rights would do nothing to protect him from our government throwing anything they can find in the book at him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom