reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Some politicians were kicking around the idea of actually creating legislation that would define what a journalist /media member is. That's one
option that did not go anywhere, thank god.
Funny part of that is that 1st amendment applies to everyone. Media doesn't have any special rights. So in the end it wouldn't even matter.
Not quite correct but I do understand what you are saying and agree with it. Restrictions can be placed on the 1st amendment, like yelling fire in a
crowded theatre or by posting knowingly false information in an effort to distort / affect another person (libel/slander case law).
The first amendment protects freedom of speech, religion and press. The issue rests what what is considered press? When the amendment was added the
press consisted of newspapers. Now days that can no longer be argued since people can have millions of followers on the internet without ever having
to print one article on a piece of paper or by ink. In addition that can be done without the person ever having to use his / her real name.
We know interpretations can cause issues, as the 2nd amendment has done the last 200+ years until 2008 and 2010, when scotus finally ruled the 2nd
amendment applies to the individual. While im positive we both think the 1st amendment applies in the manner you have stated, there will be people
who don't agree with that for whatever reason and will try and swing things in their favor.
IE The government suggesting a definition for what media is, asking media outlets not to report on polling information etc etc. For them its political
and any action that allows people to print what they want can possibly go against their candidate. So while we think its common sense, we know in
reality there will be people arguing its not and does not apply.
Its no longer good enough to say something applies and ignore actions others take to change it. For me, ignoring this topic is akin to willingly
giving up more rights so the government / groups can speak unopposed.
My argument is based on the clashes between electronic devices and the original supreme court rulings, which never took into account a medium outside
of ink and paper.
If bloggers, or anyone voicing an opinion, is protected by the first amendment then there would be no issues with electronic devices being covered by
the 4th amendment or a person refusing to give a password by the 5th amendment. There would also have been no reason for the Supreme Court to issue a
specific ruling in the manner they did. They did that to clarify the current case law because it never took into account electronic mediums. If they
felt differently they would have either refused to hear the case or remand it back with an order to reconsider based on constitutional violations.
Since we have conflicting rulings, the courts will have to incorporate electronic mediums into the case law. We are going to see a massive uptick in
electronic related court cases.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)