Freedom of the press applies to every American. Durbin would limit freedom of the press to the media as an institution.
Much has been made of 4th amendment concerns with NSA spying, 2nd amendment concerns, and of course Republicans’ attempts to whittle away at Roe, which derives its authority from the 9th. But what has gone underreported are the numerous and consistent attacks on our first freedoms by the Democratic Party. Since Obama has become President, they’ve attacked freedom of religion(employer conception mandate, Hosanna v. Tabor), freedom of the press(Durbin, DISCLOSE), and of course basic freedom of speech(Kochs, Sheldon Adelson).
The “attacks” on freedom of religion and freedom of speech are total made-up fantasy BS. There’s a tiny, tiny kernel of truth to the freedom of the press stuff.
Again, SCOTUS disagrees, unanimously, and I expect the contraception mandate to get struck down as well. And I guess there is no war on freedom of speech, as long as the speech isn’t political. Democrats have lately held to a view that political speech is not protected by the 1st amendment and can be regulated.
Hmm - lifelong democrat and, up til recently, lifelong Illinoisian. Personally, I have long been impressed w/ Durbin - I cannot recall a single time he took a stand on a controversial issue that I disagreed with. And I’ve regularly been impressed with his “statesmanship.”
Don’t know much about the issue in the OP, but, until I learn more, if the choice is between Durbin and some forum poster, I’m going with Durbin. In my opinion, and for my personal views, he has a helluva track record. YMobviouslyV.
You’ll have to explain that one to me. How is freedom of the press limited for people who want to limit the liberty of others? Are you saying the government should censor those who advocate restrictions on liberty?
Where do you get that? Durbin isn’t limiting freedom of the press, only recognizing an already extant situation that journalists get special privilege to hide their sources.
All he wants to do is define who a journalist is at the national level. Again, as he points out, most states already do.
When that advocacy goes beyond expression of ideals to harassment, bullying and creating a hostile environment, the government has a duty to protect the rights of others.
You can expect whatever you like, but to stretch the Hosanna-Tabor vs EEOC decision as evidence of an “attack on religious freedom” is ludicrous. And neither is the contraception coverage mandate- “freedom of religion” does not cover the right to run a non-religious operation like a hospital without complying with federal law.
Journalists are not a privileged class. Anyone reporting news, whether they work for a corporation or are freelance, should be able to protect their sources. For that limited purpose only.
When you lose a 1st amendment case 9-0, that’s pretty hardcore wrongness.
Religious operations have to follow federal laws too, except where federal law creates a conscience problem, as the contraception mandate does. Even then, federal laws can force religious people to violate their consciences, but such laws have to survive strict scrutiny. There is no way the contraception mandate can survive such a standard. It is not the least restrictive way to serve a compelling government interest. The government could simply provide free contraception and thus no one has to violate their conscience.
The reason I believe the adminstration is waging a war on religion is because they are making novel arguments in these cases. They are trying to narrow the scope of the 1st amendment. In the Tabor case, they argued that the ministerial exception applies only to employees performing exlusively religious functions. So if a teacher teaches math as well as religious studies, that teacher is no longer ministering. In the contraception case, the administration is arguing that business owners surrender their 1st amendment rights while running secular businesses. These are new arguments, and they aggressively seek to narrow 1st amendment protections.
So let’s say you’re friends with some notorious drug kingpin. You chat and have drinks on the weekend, and you post a story on the Straight Dope about how this kingpin murdered a rival. The government comes knocking on your door, wanting to know who this kingpin murderer is, and you say, “Buzz off. I’m a journalist, and the First Amendment means I don’t have to tell you jack.”
You really think that the First Amendment shields you from the government requiring you to give answers about things that you post on the Straight Dope because you might consider yourself a journalist?
Being wrong and “attacking” the first amendment are two very different things. So the EEOC was wrong in this instance, fine. Stretching this to pretend that the administration is mounting an attack on the 1st amendment is crazy talk. I know it’s just what the Republicans want you to think, but you do know that party lines are usually full of crap, right?
Business owners aren’t required to “surrender” their 1st amendment rights- they can say whatever they want, and practice their religion however they want. If their religion doesn’t allow them to run the business and follow the law at the same time, then the business owner has to make a choice. As they always have. Business owners have always had to make choices like these.