Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So... no number of shooting deaths can affect policy but we're gonna fuck with the constitution (Original Post) whatchamacallit Sep 2013 OP
I am not sure what this is about. ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #1
Yeah. I was wondering the same thing. Arkansas Granny Sep 2013 #2
Guess: Defending the First Amendment, Couldn't Care Less about the Second. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #3
I think there's a bit more, too. Igel Sep 2013 #6
I agree. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #7
because Feinstein never pushes for Gun Control JI7 Sep 2013 #4
Welcome to America sans backdrop and sets. n/t Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #5
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
3. Guess: Defending the First Amendment, Couldn't Care Less about the Second.
Sat Sep 21, 2013, 05:58 PM
Sep 2013

Judging from the subject line. Not much more to go on.

It might be "selective amendment support phenomenon".

We see a lot of that here.

Igel

(35,300 posts)
6. I think there's a bit more, too.
Sat Sep 21, 2013, 06:55 PM
Sep 2013

Just as they redefine terms in the 2nd, so they're redefining terms in the 1st.

The press was something that was controlled: You had to be registered, you had to pay taxes. It was easy to control what was printed when you controlled the power of the press as a government. Free press? If you have a press, you can say what you want. As the USSR in the age of photocopies found, this would be hard to avoid these days.

Some are redefining "press" to mean "the field of journalism", something it didn't mean back in 1800 and something only politically useful now because it serves as a political test--do we shield reporters from the consequences of law breaking and grant them special "press" privileges not reserved to the states or to the citizenry or not? But to redefine part of the constitution as granting special rights only to part of the citizenry is immoral. Perhaps one day we'll have professional "speakers" and "assemblers" that the freedom of speech and of assembly can apply to.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
7. I agree.
Sat Sep 21, 2013, 06:59 PM
Sep 2013

At the time written, freedom of press was really an extension of speech.

If ever it was appropriate to have a shield law for journalists, and I'm not saying there ever was such a time, that time may have passed.

These days there are far too many forms of broadcast, publication, transmission, communication.

With the Internet and cellular communications, we are all now, or are all now capable of being, the press.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So... no number of shooti...