Feinstein wants to restrict Free Speech

[Smartmarzipan]

So, she wants to restrict the speech of people whom she deems unworthy of the title "Real" journalist.

Sen. Feinstein Threatens Press Freedom
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/1 ... tens-press

Feinstein would only protect the anonymous sources of what she would call "real journalists," those being paid by an "established news organization." The law would still have had direct bearing on the James Rosen case, and that of homophonic New York Times reporter James Risen. But Feinstein would exclude bloggers, an entirely arbitrary, meritless distinction. Until very recently, FiveThirtyEight was "just a blog" and Nate Silver was "just a blogger." Glenn Greenwald is a lawyer by training who took up blogging almost as a hobby, but built himself into a Guardian columnist and now one of the paper's stars, responsible for building its international brand.

[youtube:337gs7e0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zjZo-U21mU[/youtube:337gs7e0]

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You have to get rid of that "&feature=youtu.be" part of your link for it to work.

[youtube:2ldom3ey]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zjZo-U21mU[/youtube:2ldom3ey]

[Solitary]

Restrict Free Speech or restrict Yellow journalism?  :-?  Solitary

[stromboli]

The obvious problem being that all of the "recognized news agencies" are owned by major corporations who are also involved in fracking, oil exploration, funding private armies in 3rd world countries and so on. They have no vested interest in exposing their own bad deeds.

[the_antithesis]

Maybe we should only pay real senators.

[billhilly]

Restrict Free Speech or restrict Yellow journalism?  :-?  Solitary

What difference does it make?  "Yellow journalism" can be defined as such by whoever is in power at any particular time.  See China or imagine republicans defining it.

Journalism is an activity not a profession.

[Smartmarzipan]

The obvious problem being that all of the "recognized news agencies" are owned by major corporations who are also involved in fracking, oil exploration, funding private armies in 3rd world countries and so on. They have no vested interest in exposing their own bad deeds.

THIS^^

When Congress gets to decide who is a "real" journalist, real journalism will die.

[The Whit]

Real journalism is almost dead already.  This would just be the nail in the coffin.

[Solitary]

Restrict Free Speech or restrict Yellow journalism?  :-?  Solitary

What difference does it make?  "Yellow journalism" can be defined as such by whoever is in power at any particular time.  See China or imagine republicans defining it.

Journalism is an activity not a profession.

And here I thought it was sensationalism, especially morbidly or offensively so and being dishonest in editorial comment and the presentation of news, esp. in sacrificing truth for sensationalism. Objective reporting isn't always a match for yellow journalism unless you watch Fox News. :shock:  :rollin: Solitary

[billhilly]

Don't worry.  Fox news is safe.  They meet all the qualifications of journalists being an established news organization and all.  It's the bloggers they're after.

[Shiranu]

Real journalism is almost dead already.  This would just be the nail in the coffin.

This. Between the monopoly major outlets have and several good journalists meeting "odd" & "convenient" deaths lately... it's a hard job that is dangerous and unappreciated.

[Smartmarzipan]

Real journalism is almost dead already.  This would just be the nail in the coffin.

This. Between the monopoly major outlets have and several good journalists meeting "odd" & "convenient" deaths lately... it's a hard job that is dangerous and unappreciated.

If Matt Taibbi accidentally drowns or something, I'm gonna lose it.

[LikelyToBreak]

I don't get it.  How are the Democrats and Republicans any different?  Bush only allowed "imbedded" reporters in Iraq and the Democrats howled.  Now the Democrats want to stamp out the bloggers because they have exposed too much corruption.  Yeah, I know some bloggers are full of shit, but then so is Bill O'Reilly and they aren't talking about taking him off the air.

Anyway, I don't see any of the blindly loyal Democrats defending her position on this.  Is it because she is really a Republican in disguise?  Or is it because it is really an indefensible position?  

Feinstein has once again proven to me that there is really only one party in Washington.  And all others need not apply.

[Atheon]

Feinstein has been a real disappointment to me. She was really progressive back when she was mayor of San Francisco, but she's been a conservadem since at least the late 90s, when to my dismay she supported the amendment to ban flag burning. She continues to disappoint. Her colleage, Sen. Boxer, has a much better record.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

She's sold out. Fienstien needs defeated..