Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   The media "shield" law is basically the government licensing who is and who is not a member of the media. Sleep well citizen   (breitbart.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Chuck Schumer, Cornyn, Cornyn Rips, local church, Breitbart News, Republicans, Fairness Doctrine, American citizenship  
•       •       •

1556 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2014 at 9:59 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-03-27 08:50:36 AM  
Who cares?

Tell me about "How to Boost Your Free Testosterone!"
 
2014-03-27 08:56:01 AM  

Diogenes: Who cares?


I don't know, subby's closing remark of "Sleep well citizen" means this is probably a terrifying big deal
 
2014-03-27 09:01:51 AM  

BunkoSquad: Diogenes: Who cares?

I don't know, subby's closing remark of "Sleep well citizen" means this is probably a terrifying big deal


So Jeff Gannon or James O'Keefe can't conceal their "sources."  Oooo....I'm scared.
 
2014-03-27 09:48:51 AM  
Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?
 
2014-03-27 10:02:11 AM  

InterruptingQuirk: Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?


Maybe, but we're talking about Breitbart. And the medium they use to retell their observations is called fraud and distortion.
 
2014-03-27 10:05:15 AM  

Epic Fap Session: InterruptingQuirk: Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?

Maybe, but we're talking about Breitbart. And the medium they use to retell their observations is called fraud and distortion.


It's still protected speech.

Consider your worst nightmare of a government.  Now consider that they have the ability to come after you for what you say on Fark because your observations are, to them, "fraud and distortion".

The appropriate antidote to speech you find abhorrent is *MORE* speech, not less.
 
2014-03-27 10:11:56 AM  

dittybopper: Epic Fap Session: InterruptingQuirk: Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?

Maybe, but we're talking about Breitbart. And the medium they use to retell their observations is called fraud and distortion.

It's still protected speech.

Consider your worst nightmare of a government.  Now consider that they have the ability to come after you for what you say on Fark because your observations are, to them, "fraud and distortion".

The appropriate antidote to speech you find abhorrent is *MORE* speech, not less.


Sounds great provided ALL of the speech is based in facts, not RIght-Wing-Whatever-it-takes-to-Push-The-Narrative-Factz that rockets out of the conservative echo chamber on a minute-by-minute basis.  You know, fraud and distortion.
 
2014-03-27 10:13:59 AM  
InterruptingQuirk [TotalFark]

Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?

The most open administration in history disagrees with you.

dittybopper [TotalFark]

The appropriate antidote to speech you find abhorrent is *MORE* speech, not less.
Agreed. Sadly the democrats control the white house, senate and have just under 50% in the house, and are pushing to pass this law.
 
2014-03-27 10:16:42 AM  

Wadded Beef: dittybopper: Epic Fap Session: InterruptingQuirk: Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?

Maybe, but we're talking about Breitbart. And the medium they use to retell their observations is called fraud and distortion.

It's still protected speech.

Consider your worst nightmare of a government.  Now consider that they have the ability to come after you for what you say on Fark because your observations are, to them, "fraud and distortion".

The appropriate antidote to speech you find abhorrent is *MORE* speech, not less.

Sounds great provided ALL of the speech is based in facts, not RIght-Wing-Whatever-it-takes-to-Push-The-Narrative-Factz that rockets out of the conservative echo chamber on a minute-by-minute basis.  You know, fraud and distortion.


If you think the left wing doesn't distort truths or lies. I'll sale you a nice bridge at a cheap price.
 
2014-03-27 10:18:29 AM  

Wadded Beef: dittybopper: Epic Fap Session: InterruptingQuirk: Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?

Maybe, but we're talking about Breitbart. And the medium they use to retell their observations is called fraud and distortion.

It's still protected speech.

Consider your worst nightmare of a government.  Now consider that they have the ability to come after you for what you say on Fark because your observations are, to them, "fraud and distortion".

The appropriate antidote to speech you find abhorrent is *MORE* speech, not less.

Sounds great provided ALL of the speech is based in facts, not RIght-Wing-Whatever-it-takes-to-Push-The-Narrative-Factz that rockets out of the conservative echo chamber on a minute-by-minute basis.  You know, fraud and distortion.


Relativistic standards only ensure that one day that standard will be on the other side from where you want it to be.
 
2014-03-27 10:18:32 AM  

dittybopper: Epic Fap Session: InterruptingQuirk: Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?

Maybe, but we're talking about Breitbart. And the medium they use to retell their observations is called fraud and distortion.

It's still protected speech.

Consider your worst nightmare of a government.  Now consider that they have the ability to come after you for what you say on Fark because your observations are, to them, "fraud and distortion".

The appropriate antidote to speech you find abhorrent is *MORE* speech, not less.


It is only fraud and distortion when the other guys do it.  501c's, lobbyists, PACs and Billionaires are only evil if they support the other guys agenda and the only legititamate media is othe one that supports your guy's position and turns and blind eye to their crimes and failings.
 
2014-03-27 10:20:23 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Maybe, but we're talking about Breitbart. And the medium they use to retell their observations is called fraud and distortion.


And while I take news from Breitbart with a grain of salt, that still doesn't escape the fact that your one-line argument is ad hominem.

cdn2-b.examiner.com
 
2014-03-27 10:23:39 AM  

InterruptingQuirk: Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?


Absolutely. And everyone else should be able to question them and their sources when their retellings are based on hearsay.
 
2014-03-27 10:30:23 AM  
Jesus Christ! It was farking tongue-in-cheek.

I'm not a fan of censorship and Breitbart's great if you pretend the author is a much less funny Colbert-like character.

oxnard_montalvo: Epic Fap Session: Maybe, but we're talking about Breitbart. And the medium they use to retell their observations is called fraud and distortion.

And while I take news from Breitbart with a grain of salt, that still doesn't escape the fact that your one-line argument is ad hominem.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 565x313]


I hope that grain of salt is the size of Mt McKinley.  Yes. Yes I was attacking the source. Abso-farking-lutely!
 
2014-03-27 10:37:11 AM  

Jekylman: InterruptingQuirk: Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?

Absolutely. And everyone else should be able to question them and their sources when their retellings are based on hearsay.


With restrictions of course.


/i keed
 
2014-03-27 10:47:48 AM  

Wadded Beef: dittybopper: Epic Fap Session: InterruptingQuirk: Shouldn't every citizen be afforded journalistic protection when exercising their First Amendment rights to report on what they have observed and retell it through whatever medium is at their disposal?

Maybe, but we're talking about Breitbart. And the medium they use to retell their observations is called fraud and distortion.

It's still protected speech.

Consider your worst nightmare of a government.  Now consider that they have the ability to come after you for what you say on Fark because your observations are, to them, "fraud and distortion".

The appropriate antidote to speech you find abhorrent is *MORE* speech, not less.

Sounds great provided ALL of the speech is based in facts, not RIght-Wing-Whatever-it-takes-to-Push-The-Narrative-Factz that rockets out of the conservative echo chamber on a minute-by-minute basis.  You know, fraud and distortion.


So what if I did this:

Sounds great provided ALL of the speech is based in facts, not Left-Wing-Whatever-it-takes-to-Push-The-Narrative-Factz that rockets out of the liberal echo chamber on a minute-by-minute basis.  You know, fraud and distortion.

Are you happy with it now?  Because if you aren't, then you are being hypocritical.

You, or your side, doesn't hold a lock on the truth (ie., reality, not "the truth" in a political sense).  Both sides come to the table with pluses and minuses, and neither is above shading the truth, or even out-right *LYING*, to try and "win".

I'm sure you can rattle off example after example of conservative distortions.  I now challenge you to seek out liberal, left-wing distortions.  Actively *LOOK* for them.

You may want to read this first:   The Fine Art of Baloney Detection by Carl Sagan
 
2014-03-27 10:51:43 AM  

OnlyM3: dittybopper [TotalFark]

The appropriate antidote to speech you find abhorrent is *MORE* speech, not less.
Agreed. Sadly the democrats control the white house, senate and have just under 50% in the house, and are pushing to pass this law.


Whenever someone says "Hey, this would be a good law", I think of how it might be abused by my worst nightmare of a government.

That's how I judge things like this.
 
2014-03-27 10:59:22 AM  
Breitbart, John Cornyn or not. This "law" should not pass! Despite the source or messenger, it is an attempt by the government to license journalists. "Your journalist license citizen? Oh, not accredited by the government, nothing to see her move along, or you will detained."

lh4.ggpht.com
 
2014-03-27 11:39:29 AM  
Anybody going to address how the trade-off in this law is that, yes, the federal government would be deciding who is or isn't a journalist (in some fashion) IN EXCHANGE FOR LEGAL PROTECTION THAT ISN'T CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FEDERALLY FOR ANYONE.
 
2014-03-27 11:51:18 AM  

HeartlineTwist: Anybody going to address how the trade-off in this law is that, yes, the federal government would be deciding who is or isn't a journalist (in some fashion) IN EXCHANGE FOR LEGAL PROTECTION THAT ISN'T CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FEDERALLY FOR ANYONE.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege is and has been a thing for some time now.
 
2014-03-27 11:52:07 AM  

dittybopper: Sounds great provided ALL of the speech is based in facts, not Left-Wing-Whatever-it-takes-to-Push-The-Narrative-Factz that rockets out of the liberal echo chamber on a minute-by-minute basis. You know, fraud and distortion.

Are you happy with it now? Because if you aren't, then you are being hypocritical.


I have no doubt there are left exaggerations. Nothing compared to an entire network being a mouthpiece of the plutocrats of course but, yes, I'd be happy with that. It's the only way real progress can happen.
 
2014-03-27 11:57:35 AM  

InterruptingQuirk: HeartlineTwist: Anybody going to address how the trade-off in this law is that, yes, the federal government would be deciding who is or isn't a journalist (in some fashion) IN EXCHANGE FOR LEGAL PROTECTION THAT ISN'T CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FEDERALLY FOR ANYONE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege is and has been a thing for some time now.


State law=\=federal law, and the existence of a "qualified" reporter's privilege is less than the protection provided by this law. Nice try, though.
 
2014-03-27 12:02:02 PM  

HeartlineTwist: Anybody going to address how the trade-off in this law is that, yes, the federal government would be deciding who is or isn't a journalist (in some fashion) IN EXCHANGE FOR LEGAL PROTECTION THAT ISN'T CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FEDERALLY FOR ANYONE.


Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
 
2014-03-27 12:02:53 PM  
There is no legal justification for shuield laws. Setting up 'journalists' as a protected class with rights above and beyond that of an ordinary citizen is not justifiable no matter how badly you mutilate the constitution.
 
2014-03-27 12:05:47 PM  

Warlordtrooper: HeartlineTwist: Anybody going to address how the trade-off in this law is that, yes, the federal government would be deciding who is or isn't a journalist (in some fashion) IN EXCHANGE FOR LEGAL PROTECTION THAT ISN'T CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FEDERALLY FOR ANYONE.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.


Ask Judith Miller how that worked out for her. (Hint: the answer is jail time.)
 
2014-03-27 12:12:28 PM  

dittybopper: OnlyM3: dittybopper [TotalFark]

The appropriate antidote to speech you find abhorrent is *MORE* speech, not less.
Agreed. Sadly the democrats control the white house, senate and have just under 50% in the house, and are pushing to pass this law.

Whenever someone says "Hey, this would be a good law", I think of how it might be abused by my worst nightmare of a government.

That's how I judge things like this.


Anybody know the bill # in question? I skimmed the Breitbart article and didn't see it.

Personally, so long as it a) prevented any sort of prosecutorial BS in the first place for "qualified" reporters (i.e. spares them the hassle of going to court in the first place), and b) doesn't pretend to be "all-inclusive" (which is to say, you could still invoke "reporter's privilege" in court if you aren't on the list) I think I'd be ok with it. But then, I don't know how this works right now so maybe it'd be redundant...
 
2014-03-27 12:20:50 PM  

HeartlineTwist: InterruptingQuirk: HeartlineTwist: Anybody going to address how the trade-off in this law is that, yes, the federal government would be deciding who is or isn't a journalist (in some fashion) IN EXCHANGE FOR LEGAL PROTECTION THAT ISN'T CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FEDERALLY FOR ANYONE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege is and has been a thing for some time now.

State law=\=federal law, and the existence of a "qualified" reporter's privilege is less than the protection provided by this law. Nice try, though.


I agree that this shield law has all the appearance of being good for protecting some in an official capacity, yet it still opens the door for qualifying what or who should be protected by it and therefore is not a tool to secure and protect people's freedom, but a tool for controlling it.
 
2014-03-27 12:35:54 PM  

oxnard_montalvo: And while I take news from Breitbart with a grain of salt, that still doesn't escape the fact that your one-line argument is ad hominem.


Ad hominem fallacy requires that the claim be irrelevant to the topic, false or both. His statement is neither: pointing out that claims from a collection of professional liars cannot be trusted is not an ad hominem.
 
2014-03-27 12:43:57 PM  

generallyso: pointing out that claims from a collection of professional liars cannot be trusted is not an ad hominem.


well, at least you don't have a dog in this hunt. Go back to surfing your professional liars at the huffington post
 
2014-03-27 01:09:15 PM  

dittybopper: You may want to read this first: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection by Carl Sagan


BILLLYUNNNS and BILLLYUNNNS of politicians' lies....

/how do ya spell "billlyunnns"??!?
 
2014-03-27 02:09:07 PM  

dittybopper: You, or your side, doesn't hold a lock on the truth (ie., reality, not "the truth" in a political sense).  Both sides come to the table with pluses and minuses, and neither is above shading the truth, or even out-right *LYING*, to try and "win".

I'm sure you can rattle off example after example of conservative distortions.  I now challenge you to seek out liberal, left-wing distortions.  Actively *LOOK* for them.


Both sides are bad!

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
 
2014-03-27 03:17:01 PM  
Just who is and who is not a journalist isn't as clear as it use to be.
 
2014-03-27 04:56:10 PM  
Something something first amendmant something shall make no law something.
 
2014-03-27 06:41:18 PM  

Warlordtrooper: HeartlineTwist: Anybody going to address how the trade-off in this law is that, yes, the federal government would be deciding who is or isn't a journalist (in some fashion) IN EXCHANGE FOR LEGAL PROTECTION THAT ISN'T CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FEDERALLY FOR ANYONE.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.




That has been reinterpreted to fit with more modern times

After all that whole first amendment thing was giv en to us by the same old rich white dudes who gave the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Just as they didn't have semi-automatic firearms when they ratified the Second Amendment they did not have the internet with blogs and all that other stuff when thy ratified the First Amendment.

Funny how perspectives change depending on whose ox is getting gored.


This why that whole living document/broad powers (basically just throwing under a general welfare, common defense, commerce or necessary and proper clauses) view point is a bunch of BS, even for stuff you like (Federal welfare, farm/business subsidies etc etc). We should not allow government to creatively reinterpret the Constitution to grant itself the powers it would like to have. It needs to obtained the consent of the governed through the Amendment process -to get us to grant it those powers or if need be take some away.


"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads.


In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."-Madison speech to first congress.


"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." Madison


"This specification of particulars [Article 1 Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended" Federalist 83

"the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects" Federalist 14
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report