A law that specifies "journalist" is as illegitimate as a law that specifies "Muslim"

[cthulu2016]

All persons in the USA have the same constitutional rights. If not, then what the hell are constitutional rights?

You don't get extra rights for getting a job at the New York Times. Period.

Or, to put an even sharper point on it... you don't get extra constitutional rights based on the popularity of what you have to say.

A publication with no readers is just as constitutionally legitimate as USA Today. It is likely to have lower advertising rates, but one hopes that isn't the standard.

[el_bryanto]

1. As a practical matter - how large should the white house press pool be?

How many journalists should be admitted?

Bryant

[cthulu2016]

5. That's a silly red herring, but I'll answer it...

Whether one gets to ride on Air Force One is not the same as whether one does or does not go to jail for refusing to name a source, or whether the line between journalism and espionage is defined in terms of readership.


But in answer to your question in terms of my personal view, as long as it is allocated randomly, whatever size is practical. Which means a lot of publications wouldn't make it into any given press conference or have use of any given press facility.

And if that seems insane... the idea that the government picks which publications cover the government is even more insane.

[geek tragedy]

7. Do you think all citizens should be exempt from cooperating with criminal investigations?

Or do you think none should be?

You have to choose one or the other if you think the government isn't allowed to identify journalists in order to grant them the reporter's privilege.

[cthulu2016]

13. What the relevance of that?

Obviously it must either be all or none.

It is irrelevant to the statement, "It must be all or none," whether it is all or none.

[geek tragedy]

15. So, which policy do you advocate--making criminal investigations virtually impossible, or allowing

the government to force reporters to testify against their sources?

That's what your absurd distortion of the constitution implies the choice is.

[geek tragedy]

2. So, all state journalist shield laws are unconstitutional?

Note, btw, that doctors and clergy enjoy legal privileges. Would you say those privileges also violate the constitution?

[cthulu2016]

6. Yes. On their face.

Duh.

[geek tragedy]

9. Well, duh, they don't. Because they're part of the law in

every state as well as the Federal Rules of Evidence.

So, your understanding of the Constitution is incorrect.

Shield laws PROTECT journalists.

Only at DU would shield laws be considered tools of oppression.

[cthulu2016]

17. Oh my...

"So, your understanding of the Constitution is incorrect."

As was Thurgood Marshall's understanding of the constitution every time he ever argued that an existing precedent be discarded.

So having now informed us that only an ignoramus would have argued that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional because it was the way things were done and supported by precedent, do you have any more wisdom to share?

[geek tragedy]

18. You are no Thurgood Marshall.

Nor are you a friend of press protections. People who do care about press freedoms support shield laws.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-statement-shield-bill

[KamaAina]

11. As do lawyers.

Why don't sharks eat lawyers?

Professional courtesy.

[geek tragedy]

12. So, you think attorney-client privilege is also something that should go away? nt

[KamaAina]

14. No. I was agreeing with you.

The gratuitous lawyer joke was filler, in place of a smilie.

[geek tragedy]

16. Ah, gotcha. nt

[randome]

3. Who do you consider to be a journalist?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[cthulu2016]

8. Um... who the fuck cares?

Why didn't you ask who I consider a Muslim? Makes as much sense.

[randome]

10. So anyone who says they are.

Journalists have many more privileges than 'ordinary' citizens.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dr. Strange]

19. Should they?

Shouldn't everyone be entitled to constitutional rights and privileges.

[randome]

21. Journalists have many MORE privileges.

If you want to take those unique privileges away, I think you'd have a fight on your hands.

And if the government can grant 'extra-special-super-duper' privileges to a class of employee, then they can refine how those privileges are granted.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dr. Strange]

23. I'd say that's a horrible idea.

Whatever privileges journalists might have should apply to everyone.

[cthulu2016]

20. Since no legal distinction on that basis should be made, who cares?

Calling yourself a journalist should have the same weight as calling yourself the Wizard of Oz.

You seem to think legal distinctions based on being a government defined journalist are legitimate, and that is something you think.

How my thinking fits into your set of assumptions is this: It Doesn't.

[randome]

22. Calling oneself a journalist implies all the special privileges that go with that position.

The right to keep sources confidential. The right of access to crime scenes and governmental entities. The right to stalk and harass celebrities. Shield laws. The extra privileges accorded to journalists are numerous.

So knowing who is and who is not a journalist is a valid question to ask under certain circumstances.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Xithras]

26. The government can choose whether or not to extend those privledges.

The government does not get to decide who is a journalist, or who gets to access the basic protections afforded to journalists under our Constitution.

The government CAN choose whether or not to extend any special privileges to journalists beyond those basic constitutional rights, but it must do so in a way that is equal to all journalists. All journalists have the right to keep sources confidential or none do. All journalists have the right to access crime scenes or none do. You get the idea. The government doesn't get to decide who is a journalist, and it must treat all journalists equally, but it can decide what extra protections it will (or will not) extend.

[Xithras]

25. Anyone who creates and publishes news and opinions, for consumption by others, via any medium.

You know, the definition generally used by the Supreme Court, who are the arbitrators of these sorts of disputes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. The net scares them

And I keep saying it, a reporter is an enemy of the state, the corollary needs to be added, a stenographer is preferred.

[RC]

24. +100

That is exactly it. All the news they say is news and nothing more.
"Here is the press release with everything you need to know. Now go away and don't listen to those people over there."

[Scuba]

27. Journalism is ....

[Octafish]

28. The First Amendment explains why you are correct.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

True, it is the only business mentioned by name in the Constitution. The reason, the free flow of information, opinion and news is essential for democracy.