The dishonest corporate strategy of passing "protections" to dismantle the Constitution

[woo me with science]

Last edited Sat Sep 21, 2013, 12:38 AM - Edit history (4)

This is the new despicable game the corporatists are playing, and it is a dangerous assault. They are advancing what they call legislation to "protect" our Constitutional rights, in order to dismantle those rights.

The game? Take a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Pretend it doesn't exist. Pass a law to guarantee some portion of that right or to outlaw some specific violation of that right. And voila. You have established by default that any violations NOT covered by your law are legal by default ... or that any protections not guaranteed by your law do not exist.

They're working on it now in at least two areas of assault on the Constitution: laws that appear to protect us but which actually assault the Bill of Rights:

1. They will do it with the NSA, to convince the public that they are addressing concerns about spying. Already, any public statements we hear about the NSA involve possibly "scaling back" the programs to please a complaining public, rather than acknowledging that they are unconstitutional.

Keep in mind that the mass spying and storage of data are already unconstitutional by default. We should not need laws to *limit* the programs, because they already violate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of warrants and probable cause. The mass spying should be eliminated on Constitutional grounds alone.

But the corporatists will create legislation to "protect" us that makes a grand show of limiting the spying in some small ways. They will be praised by the corporate media for "reining in" the NSA in these limited, most likely cosmetic, ways. But by passing laws outlawing just certain types of spying or access to the data, they establish a given that anything not covered by the law - the larger spying programs - are legal by default.

2. And now we see the same manipulative strategy being used to assault our journalists' First Amendment protections. The disgusting legislation put forward by Dianne Feinstein is being trumpeted as a way to "protect" journalists from an overreaching Justice Department, as in the case of James Risen, threatened with prison for not revealing sources in a whistleblowing case about government abuse.

But here's the point: James Risen should never have been targeted in the first place. Not in the United States of America, where we claim to have a free press, and where nobody could prove that he had engaged in any criminal behavior or even any behavior beyond the normal job description of an investigative journalist. Only the familiar cadre of corporate defenders was defending the outrageous targeting of him by the Justice Department a couple of months ago...yet now we get to watch their absurd pivot to arguing that we need this legislation to PROTECT journalists like him from such targeting.

What utter bullshit. James Risen would not have been dragged into court under any previous administration. His targeting/persecution by this administration is now being used as an excuse to argue that we need *specific new laws* to protect future journalists from such persecution.

And what are the laws we are told we need? PROTECTIONS for journalists, as though journalists are not and should not already be protected by the First Amendment itself. And how will they be "protected"? By passing *laws* that will clarify that certain journalists, and only certain journalists, defined by the government, of course, will receive First Amendment protections.

Get the pattern here? The effect is to shift the Constitution on its head, to nullify it.

Rather than a Constitution that requires warrants and probable cause for every search, they want us to accept that special, targeted legislation is needed to LIMIT spying. In other words, mass spying is legal by default.

And instead of a Constitution that endows journalists with First Amendment freedoms as a given, they want us to accept that *laws* must be passed to bestow such protections on those considered by the government to be worthy of them. In other words, First Amendment protection is NOT a default.

________________________________

We need a return to talking about our fundamental Constitutional protections when addressing these issues. The common theme in the corporate shell game is to stubbornly, vehemently avoid talking about the Constitution in these discussions. They always want to talk about reparative legislation, instead. They do not want anyone reminded that the Constitution renders their Trojan Horse legislation unnecessary and reveals it as the scam it really is.

We have a government seized and purchased by corporations now. They are working steadily to put into place a government that advances the interests of corporations. Corporations by definition are interested in one thing: PROFIT. Constitutions, bills of human rights, and the protections from government abuse that they provide hold no currency in corporate thinking or corporate ethics beyond their contribution to, or interference with, the bottom line.

[ProSense]

1. "Despite some flaws, it's on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom..."

Senate Finally Frees the Press (Kind Of)

By Gabe Rottman

The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday took up a federal reporter shield law for the second time this year, after getting caught up back in July over the definition of a journalist. This time around, however, the committee passed it, marking the first time a shield bill has moved since 2009, when momentum behind a very similar measure died an unfortunate death after the Wikileaks affair. Despite some flaws, it's on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government transparency.

The recent revelations that the Justice Department has aggressively investigated members of the news media in several high-profile leaks inquiries have breathed new life into the measure, which would add federal protections on top of the 49 states that already "shield" reporters from having to disclose their sources and work product.

<...>

The biggest change between this bill and S. 448, which died in 2009, is who's covered by the legislation. In 2009 (prior to Wikileaks being a thing), the bill had a narrow-ish definition of journalist, skewed to the legacy media, but still possibly inclusive of professional bloggers, citizen reporters, and other new media types.

<...>

But, the new bill, while adopting the crabbed Feinstein definition, also has a safety valve that may, depending on how it's implemented, end up being quite positive. It would allow a judge discretion to expand the scope of the act to anyone if the judge determines it "would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities."

- more -

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/senate-finally-frees-press-kind

Reporters Committee statement on shield bill

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013.

Our statement: We are pleased to see that the Judiciary Committee passed this bill. It goes a long way toward ensuring that reporters will be protected from subpoenas for their confidential information and sources. It's not a perfect bill, but it tries to cover a broad array of reporters. While it is not as inclusive as we would like, it is not nearly as limited in that area as previous attempts at a federal shield law have been. It still is important that we work with Congress and the administration to make sure journalists' records are not scooped up in broad surveillance programs, and that Justice Department attorneys respect the rights of reporters, but today's action is a significant step in the right direction.

<...>

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

From the President: Contact your senators now!

It’s time to raise the shield. Now! Congress is considering the Free Flow of Information Act — a federal shield law. We need to let our U.S. senators know how important this legislation is for society. You can help! Email or call your two senators (info below), and then let us know that you did. We will update the shield map and continue to spread the word. Act now!

- more -

http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw.asp

By David Greene

Senate Revises Media Shield Law for the Better, But It’s Still Imperfect

The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a new version of the proposed media shield law, forging a compromise on who should be protected from having to reveal their journalistic sources in court. The amended bill, which is now clear to go for a full vote in the Senate, avoids defining who is a “journalist.” Moreover, it would allow judges the discretion to apply the protection to any person who, in the interest of justice, should be considered a practicing journalist.

The bill is far from perfect, but the new compromise opens the door to non-mainstream journalists, as well as new forms of journalism that may develop in the future.

The Long and Winding Road to a Federal Reporters’ Privilege Statute

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (S. 987) would create protection for newsgatherers who are served with subpoenas or other court orders seeking unpublished information obtained during the course of their newsgathering.

Currently, 40 states have shield laws that provide protections against subpoenas and orders issued by state courts, but there is no statutory protection against subpoenas and other orders issued by federal courts. Instead, newsgatherers have had to rely on a “reporters privilege,” interpreted by many federal courts as deriving from the First Amendment. Yet few courts apply it to block grand jury subpoenas, which are especially common, and the vitality of the constitutional privilege as a whole has recently been called into doubt. Indeed, a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply it at all.

There is no question that a federal shield law is needed. However, as with all shield laws, the law must define which persons can claim its protections.

- more -

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

Kill the bill! Keep the status quo!!!

[sabrina 1]

3. So you view the 1st Amendment as the 'the status quo'?

Are you familiar with the 1st Amendment to the Constitution? The one that is part of the Law of the Land? The Amendment that totally protects Freedom of the Press?

Considering how it has done so for nearly two centuries, see SC rulings on this issue where courts have refused to undermine those protections even in controversial cases.

Considering how protected the rights of journalists are under the Constitution, why is it necessary to 'define' journalism at all and introduce 'protections' that are not needed?

IF there is a fear that freedom of the press is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment, then the way to correct that is to add a new Amendment to the Constitution. But clearly no one wants to even talk about that. Why? Because that would make clear that there is no need for these pretenses that 'fixes' are needed.

Considering the assaults on Whistle Blowers and on Independent media that actually DO present FACTS to the public, give one reason why anyone should trust the Government's claim that they are 'only trying to protect journalists'?? They have proven this is not the case.

[bahrbearian]

5. Hey' didn't you read the links?

I didn't I was sacred they didn't go anywhere, waste of money DLC.

[sabrina 1]

6. Lol, yes, I read them before when they were presented in another thread.

There was even one from the ACLU airc.

I just don't trust a government that has gone after Whistle Blowers and non-Corporate Controlled Media relentlessy, to 'define' who is a journalist and who is not. I guess I'm just not willing to trust any of our liberties with a Government that has been consistently removing them over the past several decades, using fear and emotion to manipulate the people into voluntarily giving them away themselves.

I would rather trust my liberties to a kindergarten class who at least have a sense of right and wrong.

[ProSense]

9. Yeah

"Hey' didn't you read the links? I didn't I was sacred they didn't go anywhere, waste of money DLC."

...becoming informed isn't as much fun as posting crappy fact-free opinions.

Enjoy!

[reddread]

10. while becoming disinformed

is a boatload of fun.

[JDPriestly]

41. The links just lead to the opinions of people who are scared to death of the internet

because it is tearing the clothes of the emperor and they are the emperor.

The news media does not really cover the news or opinion. It merely reports propaganda with bits of the news in between.

What happened in Syria is still and unknown. What happened in Egypt? A coup that is now taken for granted since the media no longer reports on it.

I gave up on watching TV news long ago. I don't get cable. Too much Kardashian, etc. I get my news here on DU. I appreciate the comments of DUers. they have better judgment than most of the members of the paid news media.

If Congress passes this definition of the press, it really is the end of the Bill of Rights. They have sawed away at it since 1970. The end began when JFK was assassinated. And now we are seeing the final round. I think they call it the "end game." The US is not even a shadow of what the Founding Fathers dreamed of. It's very sad.

[ProSense]

8. Everyone

So you view the 1st Amendment as the 'the status quo'?

<...>

IF there is a fear that freedom of the press is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment, then the way to correct that is to add a new Amendment to the Constitution. But clearly no one wants to even talk about that. Why? Because that would make clear that there is no need for these pretenses that 'fixes' are needed.

...is a journalist because...the Constitution.

Jeff Gannon...journalist!

Dean Chambers...journalist!

James O'Keefe...journalist!

Who or what is the "press"? I think invoking the Constitution without any understanding of it or history is absurd.

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.

Are you aware of existing shield laws?

[Skip Intro]

13. Crazy people acting like they got some freedom or something.

What the hell is wrong with them?!



Is it your position we should be for whatever harms those we do not like?

Maybe only speech we agree with should be legal?

Do you ever shed the cheerleader act long enough to see a bigger picture?

[ProSense]

15. Second amendment. Constitution = NRA = more guns.

Let "freedom" ring!!!!

"Do you ever shed the cheerleader act long enough to see a bigger picture?"

Do you ever stop cheering the NRA?

"Guns, like cars, machetes, rope, etc., are tools of mankind. They all have appropriate uses. When used inappropriately, the inanimate object is not to blame, the person is. Is that not self-evident? "

Anyone have a statistic on how many kids accidentally run over and kill a sibling with a car?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023682001#post143

[Skip Intro]

16. Yeah, I'm for the Constitution. You? n/t

[ProSense]

18. Orly Taitz and the NRA make the same claim

Invoking the Constitution doesn't make one's argument valid.

[Skip Intro]

19. Again, are you for the Constitution? Simple question...

Your answer?

[ProSense]

20. Yes,

"Again, are you for the Constitution? Simple question...

Your answer?"

...the Constitution is a great document.

Are you for gun control and efforts to stop the senseless killings?

[Skip Intro]

21. Then why are you defending attacks on it? n/t

[ProSense]

22. Are you for gun control and efforts to stop the senseless killings?

That was a simple question, which you didn't answer.

[NuclearDem]

30. An anachronistic amendment that was added to appease roving militias who hunted down slaves

Is NOT the same thing as the protection of the Fourth Estate.

I frankly would rather have James O'Keefe free to run around being a turd than for corrupt DiFi to determine who is a journalist and who isn't.

[JDPriestly]

42. If Orly Taitz publishes her opinions in a newsletter or a blog, her writings are protected by

the First Amendment both as freedom of speech and as freedom of the press.

Just because someone is stupid or disagrees with you does not deprive them of the protection of the First Amendment's freedom of speech and of the press.

Have you heard of the Alien and Sedition Act?

It did not fare well.

[JDPriestly]

14. Have you ever heard of the Alien and Sedition laws?

They were the first attempt to censor the press in the US. Didn't work.

We have too much, far too much secrecy.

The Constitution states that the freedom of the press is not to be abridged. That means it is not to be limited or made brief.

And yes, people we don't like, publications we don't like, have the right to be published.

And, yes, that includes Jeff Gannon...journalist!

Dean Chambers...journalist!

James O'Keefe...journalist!

And what is more, it includes Pro Sense if he wishes.

[ProSense]

17. "And, yes, that includes Jeff Gannon...journalist!"

LOL!

OK

[JDPriestly]

43. How would you define the press?

What limitations would you put on the freedom of the press?

And why?

[Uncle Joe]

2. It's kind of like someone knocking all your teeth out, giving three of them back to you and

then remarking on how your smile has been improved.

Thanks for the thread, woo me with science.

[woo me with science]

32. That's the best metaphor I've ever heard

for their entire M.O.

Thank you.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Yeppers. THAT'S the game. Overcome the last barrier to Totalitarianism: The Courts

Note how DiFi's Amendment was "fixed" by adding a little judicial discretion.

[woo me with science]

33. +1

[gopiscrap]

7. fucking corporations

capitalism has run it's course.

[Skip Intro]

11. The Constitution is under attack by Dems and repubs on many fronts.

It seems many of those sworn to protect it have little to no regard for it.

Collectively, they seem to be coming after many of the rights decreed and recognized by the Constitution. And yes, the 2nd is included. No one should be blinded by fantastical promised outcomes and cries of, "this is necessary" or even worse, "mandatory."

Who the hell is DiFi and others to rewrite our founding principles that they've sworn to uphold?

These are our own people.

Wtf?

[woo me with science]

28. They pretend to be our own people.

They are the corporations' own people.

[MuseRider]

31. Exactly!

The only consideration of us that I can see is the thought put into selling their crap to us. They don't really care if we buy it or not, they no longer need us.

[JDPriestly]

12. K&R. The press does not need to be defined.

Any one of us can start a newspaper, hand it out for free if we will, and we are members of the press. It has always been that way in our free country, and it needs to stay that way forever.

If Congress defines the press, it abridges freedom of the press. Defining something limits it to the definition. And that is by definition limitation.

Congress does not have the authority to do that. Let the people and the markets define what is press and what is not.

A high school newspaper is just as important and valid a part of the press as is The New York Times. So be it.

[woo me with science]

27. +10000

[Uncle Joe]

29. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

and a thumbs up to boot.

[Scuba]

37. + another

[JEB]

23. Skyscrapers full of lawyers, armies of lobbyists,

unlimited money to sway elections, owned, compliant and now "defined" media....Democracy's goose is pretty well cooked. Stick a fork in it. I bet it's done.

[woo me with science]

35. We are in deep, deep trouble

for sure.

[JEB]

24. I'd bet dollars to donuts that TPP

is chock full of "protections" and "definitions". All designed to enhance the power of our corporate overlords.

[Maedhros]

25. "Cruel and inhuman punishments are being carefully described in tiny paragraphs

so they won't conflict with the Constitution (which, itself, is being modified in order to accommodate THE FUTURE)."

(The Central Scrutinizer)

[truedelphi]

26. I am willing to give Sen Feinstein the ability to define

Journalism as soon as she and her hubby give back the tens of millions of dollars they made from the Iraq War, almost all of it on account of how she redefined the Senate Code of Ethics, and the insider information she received when various military personnel discussed future war operations in front of one of her committees.

[woo me with science]

44. Feinstein

is a menace to this country.

She is the personification of the corporate cancer infecting our government.

[questionseverything]

34. it is kind of like

relevant in the patriot act was supposed to limit what was to be collected...until relevant meant "everything"

[Egalitarian Thug]

36. "Free speech zones" and other abominations came about just this way.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that Americans have become too stupid to live.
& R

[woo me with science]

38. You're right. That's a perfect example.

Same manipulative, filthy M.O.

[Fumesucker]

39. Free speech zones evolved from abortion clinic protests and an effort to protect patients

Protect them from overzealous protesters by keeping the protesters physically distant from the clinic where the patients had to go.

The law of unintended consequences bit hard on that idea which basically came from liberals.

[Egalitarian Thug]

40. There's always a good reason to restrict freedoms, just a little bit. n/t