While I don’t think there is much behind the OP’s concerns, I think the internet and the pace of modern technology makes interpretation and application of the 1st amendment - and other portions of the Constitution - quite interesting.
My personal opinion is that many original textualist arguments are getting more and more strained. But my personal opinion has also long been that the majority of such arguments have been little other than a mask for political and philosophical preferences and prejudices.
@ adaher
Also, why should the business owner force his/her religious views on the employees? Where are the employees rights to follow their religion?
Would you agree if a Jewish owner required employees in a factory to eat only kosher on their lunch break?
In that case, journalists also should enjoy no protection from revealing their source.
My argument is simply that there is no reason to make distinctions between professional and amateur journalists. It’s the PRACTICE of journalism that is protected by the 1st amendment, not the profession, and certainly not the media as an institution.
Because you suck at interpreting the facts. Bush’s EEOC filed the action, but it was the Obama administration that argued in court for a narrow interpretation of the 1st amendment. The EEOC are not experts on the 1st amendment and like all government agencies make mistakes. The constitutional professor should have known better.
The Bush administration would never have made such ridiculous arguments in front of the Supreme Court. They would have dropped the suit as soon as they realized what the suit meant.
The contraception mandate doesn’t involve pushing religious views onto employees. Employees are free to get contraception on their own, just as employees are free to eat pork outside their workplace.
Would you also agree that a Jewish or Muslim employer cannot be required to serve pork?
But I think you’re misunderstanding Durbin’s point. He wants professional journalists not to be compelled to answer those questions. For example, if a reputable reporter published the story of a murder, he thinks that such a journalist should enjoy a privilege from being compelled to reveal his sources.
But he doesn’t think that everyone who can make a flimsy claim to being a journalist just because they have a Twitter account should enjoy that same privilege. So in my example, you, me, and Durbin are all in agreement that such a person should still be required to give answers to questions about his sources.
I’m not fully on board with Durbin’s views, either – I’m not a huge fan of making a journalism privilege that’s on par with a religious minister or spousal privilege. It seems like you might agree with me. But I think his view reflects a broader embrace of the First Amendment than you or I think is appropriate.
You’ll have us believe that the denial of religious liberty you’re wailing about in your OP is not the actual on-the-ground action, but instead a losing argument made to the Supreme Court?
I don’t know if that’s a pathetic attempt at face-saving your factual error, or just an incredibly petty complaint. Either way, it’s fundamentally wrong since it was the Bush Administration that both took the action *and *argued that the ministerial exception did not apply.
The denial of liberty is the attempt on multiple fronts by the Obama administration to narrow the scope of the 1st amendment.
The Bush administration also made arguments defending McCain-Feingold, but it was the Obama administration that claimed that the law could be used to ban books.
See the distinction yet? The Bush administration was merely wrong. The Obama administration knew exactly what they were doing and took an aggressive stance against the 1st amendment in both cases.
Finally, where is my error? Did I claim that Hosanna Tabor was a suit initiated by the Obama administration? No, I focused solely on their arguments in the case.
You’re right: journalism should be what’s protected, not journalists. The whole idea of there even being a class of professional journalists is backwards thinking. This is the information age–anyone who learns about information and reports it is a journalist. That’s why sites like Twitter exist. The dude took a shit on twitter and is promoting a form of classism amongst journalists. You’ve to register for your journalist card! That is bad.
But, no, you have to sully the thread by making it yet another excuse to whine about how liberal this messageboard is. Can’t you make one post on this messageboard without complaining about our politics?
The only distinction appears in your feverish partisan imagination.
Both administrations argued that the ministerial exception did not apply to the EEOC action that the Bush administration initiated. If you point to some way in which Obama expanded that argument, then you would begin to be able to make an argument.
(Though, it is worth noting, that characterizing good faith debate in court over the scope of the ministerial exception as “an attack of religious liberty,” is already pretty far into the pee-filled portion of the kiddie pool.)
I don’t get it. For example, there is currently no Federal shield law for journalists. The White House has endorsed Senator Schumer’s press shield bill. But you’re saying that the White House position is actually anti-First Amendment… because the status quo of there being no Federal shield law is preferable to having one that you might not be fully supportive of?
A media shield law narrows freedom of the press protections so that they apply to a privileged class. Every blogger from Daily Kos to Glenn Reynolds to Redstate can see this.
[QUOTE=Fear itself] 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.
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis mine)
And then the issue is not Freedom of Speech, is it?
What do you mean “narrows?” There is no Federal shield law. Anyone, including journalists, can be thrown in jail by a Federal judge if they refuse to answer questions about their sources. See for example, Judith Miller. How would a Federal shield law be narrowing First Amendment protections, when there are none at this time?
Seriously, are we talking past each other, or are you stupid?