UPDATE: The link to the article seems to have gone elsewhere (thanks to jpfitz for alerting me), so here is a more recent one that has Chuck Schumer pushing the delightfully named, Free Flow of Information Act.


Can’t have those pesky bloggers and podcasters spouting just anything when there are approved scripts to read.

“The bill’s protections would apply to a “covered journalist,” defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a “covered journalist” who would be granted the privileges of the law.”

Essentially, if you don’t work for the likes of the dying mainstream media, the government can (and will) subpoena any journalist to force them to reveal their sources or face prosecution. Apparently, as described by one of the nation’s biggest hypocrites, the First Amendment only applies to some people and the government should get to decide who those people are.

The article has links to the bills and amendment.



  1. MikeN says:

    Yes, journalists should be regulated, and they should provide all their sources to the government. That way, they can be easily checked to see if they are doing their job properly.

  2. LibertyLover says:

    “Journalist Shield Law“??

    How about the “Propaganda Protection Act!”

  3. LibertyLover says:

    http://llinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/freedom_press_history.php

    Interesting article.

    The original reason for limited freedom of speech and press and licensing radio/TV stations was because of the limited bandwidth. Thus, if you were spouting one side of a political argument, you had to give equal access to the other side.

    I wonder if one could argue that since bandwidth is effectively unlimited in the internet age, there is no need for licensing political speech.

    • Tim says:

      How very thoughtful. Piss off, FCC.

      With Ultra Wide Band routers made using time-based tuning instead of frequency then there is almost no need to worry about interferance anymore either. — Like how bats fly thousands together through the caves yet on essentially the same frequency.

      “”Ultra wideband broadcasts digital pulses that are timed very precisely on a carrier signal across a very wide spectrum (number of frequency channels) at the same time. Transmitter and receiver must be coordinated to send and receive pulses with an accuracy of trillionths of a second. On any given frequency band that may already be in use, the ultra wideband signal has less power than the normal and anticipated background noise so theoretically no interference is possible.

      http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/ultra-wideband

      Also, they can go very much farther with less power to start with because of the lack of {unintintional but intentional is probably difficult anyway} interference and multipathing is not a problem.

  4. Enemy_of_the_State says:

    If it contains a “lie and go to jail”, clause pass the bill.

  5. Mr. Oblivious (cause Capt. Obvious is now trademarked!) says:

    Apparently, as described by one of the nation’s biggest hypocrites, the First Amendment only applies to some people and the government should get to decide who those people are.

    What the hell did you expect?! “The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.” And when you have the likes of President ZERO deciding who has to join the ranks of the health insured and who DOESN’T – a completely different subject that not even the established press is seriously looking at (like at what point did our President get to enforce laws as if he were king?) – it just goes to show how there’s a real effort by all political parties (with power) INCLUDING our “4th branch” (the press) to (re)establish a aristocracy of certain privileged citizens!

    … What it REALLY boils down to is (ta da) — MONEY!

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Is Capt. Oblivious also trademarked?

    • Captain Obvious says:

      I have no copyright, nor would I sue, over the fair and open use of Captain Obvious. In fact I would give it up for a pint of any decent IPA.

      Happy to switch over to Squishington from Bump in the Night. Or Hack & Slash from ReBoot.

  6. Tim says:

    But, can I still not yell “virus!” in an internet forum?? We must limit free speech — lest, little timmy teaches people about cannabis and neocon pharmaceuticals collapses {and, they get prostate cancer to) so that happy little herb gatherers (wherever they may be) will win. not. acceptable.

  7. bobbo, no lawyer, but I can read says:

    All you all including the OP and the Link………….have it wrong.

    The issue best as I can tell not listing to the video is NOT freedom of the Press but rather IMMUNITY from investigational subpoenas (to reveal sources).

    First Amendment/Freedom of Speech/Press Immunity is not directly affected: anyone can print/say whatever they want to. At most, this is about who can speak with immunity NOT for being jailed, but to reveal sources====>you know, when a CRIME has been committed and the Gubment wants to catch bad guys. Admittedly, too often suspect when the crime is revealing gubment secrets…and those secrets involve the gubment violating the law or lying about what they are doing…. but what do you want…..Perfection?

    So—ProTip==if you are going to rat out the Gubment, do it with a Face you see on TV, or a columnist you read Sunday morning.

    Nice balance of competing interests in my book. Why “should” Joe Citizen with an internet connection not be subject to the general application of the law?

    • Tim says:

      This is bullshit, bobbo. This is corporation Amerika with its’ weasly layer words, after all.

      I’ll stick with Nimmo’s take.

      “”If passed, there will be two standards for journalism in the United States. Citizen journalists and bloggers will be held to one standard and corporatist media journalists will be held to another. The former may go to jail if they attempt to protect sources from government intimidation and legal action.

      http://infowars.com/senate-has-votes-to-pass-law-shielding-corporate-journalists/

      • Dianne Fienstein says:

        Ha ha ha. This bill is so that we don’t go to jail for not telling what information we gleened from our all-seeing and temporal coorelated panopticon. And ohh! We get to just make shit up still to.

        If I had the votes I’d have said “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!” — Dianne ( banshee’d up,withered udder’d bitch) Feinstein…but you may call me *Cass Sunstein*

        “”…Sunstein’s point. Mistrust of government produced narratives, many provided without sufficient evidence, is naïve, child-like and, in the case of misgivings about vaccines, downright dangerous. Sunstein does not mention a bountiful record demonstrating government is nothing less than a pathological liar.

        http://infowars.com/cass-sunstein-truth-is-a-disease/
        http://prisonplanet.com/obama-czar-wants-mandatory-government-propaganda-on-political-websites.html

        He really knows how to pleasure a fascist androgyne — We’re gonna go compromise each other later…

        • Dianne Feinstein says:

          oppsy! My undocumented intern page will correct that to read “Mr. and Mrs. America, shut the fuck up!”

  8. ECA says:

    sO,
    ANYONE, that TRIES, to give out general knowledge or Pass general knowledge and information CAN be prosecuted..

    see, there is no acknowledgment of OTHER persons..

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      No ECA–has nothing to do with general knowledge.

      No Timmy–has nothing to do with advocating cannabis.

      No limitation on speaking about whatever you want to.

      The issue is protecting sources of news. Very limited/rare issue that inherently should be a narrow exception===protecting criminals that the law is after.

      Don’t like the law being violated?==>Change the law.

      I know, its like a stubbed toe isn’t it?

      • ECA says:

        But,
        But, what IF there isnt a 3rd party?
        What will happen to me?
        (Scape goat)
        Think about NOT being hidden, and having the info out..CORPS would stomp on you so fast..the BILLS would never end.(they have done it, they cancelled Snowdens Credit cards and bank accounts, with no warrants, as well as a few others)

        There is a rule to being a democracy..
        KNOWLEDGE..
        If the PEOPLE dont know whats happening, they cant TELL who to vote for..

        Some dont understand, that Even in your HOME, you have more then 2 opinions, in a family. The MORE info and opinions that are out there, the more you have a chance of getting a SOLUTION..

      • Tim says:

        That may be the justification for now but these things have a way of *growing* in scope. I have a strong suspicion that what will be born from this is a melding of whatever this is suposed to prevent with the entertainment lobby/piracy crap —

        They will probably copywrite everything they say and ‘liscense’ it out to those they choose while themselves withholding the right to change the facts/details/names/words/exclamations/any other images/ media, ect., ect., in perpetuity…

        Besides, how much is classified even from those voting on the bill?

        • This is exactly correct. I, for example, am obviously on the “covered” side of the equation by any measure. But the measure will be liberal at first then slowly constricted until there is an actual list of people who are allowed free speech.

          How anyone can support this sort of legislation is befuddling. Who actually writes up this crap?

          And, BTW, it’s as unconstitutional as anything ever.

          • Tim says:

            I wonder how many they’ll put back into the federal workforce feeding the memory holes at the newly mandated and sure to be very expensive, yet double-plus unpleasant to the eye Ministry of Truth?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            From Memory—while many States have reporter shield laws WHICH IS THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE (not Freedom of Speech issues which I grant is related but not quite the same thing) there ARE NO SUCH LAWS at the Federal Level.

            Under Federal Law—JCD and all other MSM and other covered news agencies, independent contractors, and student reporters HAVE NO PROTECTION AT ALL.

            So—you may think this law should go farther, but passing it will provide more of the protection you good folks errantly think is being chiseled away at.

            Ha, ha.

            Typical…….. and why democracy doesn’t work.

          • MikeN says:

            Predictable after the Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame affair and other scandals where journalists were not giving up their sources. The counterargument not being accepted by liberals was that journalists have no protection, they are the ones who make the promise of confidentiality, not the government. Since anyone is a potential reporter, anyone could then hide behind a shield law to avoid giving testimony. So now liberals are calling for licensing to allow for their precious shield law.

            On a separate note, note that Michael Mann is currently in court trying to make it a crime to say bad things about Michael Mann, to get government declaration that the whitewash investigations make him beyond criticism. The first judge ruled that ‘calling into question his reasoning and intellect is tantamount to an accusation of fraud.’

          • LibertyLover says:

            This is why the 2nd Amendment is America’s First Freedom.

            It is needed to protect the others.

          • Tim says:

            But, bobbo? It’s Feinstein. Yea, the one that just won’t melt because she sticks her fingers into bullet holes found on fresh crime scenes and draws out the last life essence like some kind of sea lamphry fingered harpie.

            “”A real reporter, declared Madame Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, is “a salaried agent” of a media company like the New York Times or ABC News, not a shoestring operation with volunteers and writers who are not paid.

            Shumer pretends to go along with the (undoubtedly false) reassurances from Holder** — “unless the journalist in question is the subject of a criminal investigation.” but then he does his usual double speak:

            “The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those and we’ve ensured that”

            “But there are people who write and do REAL journalism, in different ways than we’re used to. They should not be excluded from this bill.”

            The last one there is doubly ambiguous to wiggle in later. If the bill offers extra protections then is he supposed to be seen as being sympathetic to *new* up and comming dessimination of news? “…But there are people…” Golly, Mr. Shumer… How many of the general public know about these ‘people’? Are there very many of them because I still don’t know how to program my vcr…

            This isn’t about protection, bobbo. This is about taking complete control aka Max Headroom style where media infringements are a capitol offence.

            http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Pcis4Q9_McM#t=2324

            ——————————

            **Hmm, Mr. Holder — Is not this man’s plan to open up a criminal investigation into every american citizen so as to reconcile keeping/destroying the nsa trove contested in other ongoing lawsuits??

          • MikeN says:

            No, you are not obviously on the covered side of the equation, as it would be up to the discretion of a judge. Or perhaps a Cabinet member.

          • Tim says:

            Do you think it’d come to something like sites being prosecuted for LINKING to sites which host ‘infringing material’ and has even expanded to other ‘indexing’ sites which list compilations of those sites, MikeN?

            I do. Also, it must be considered where this {i *think* its law now — passed senate} benwa-ball for blathering bitches legislation originated. In other words: What is the *intent*??

          • Tim says:

            “”Michael Mann is currently in court trying to make it a crime to say bad things about Michael Mann

            Screw Michael Mann-in-the-boat. I hear his itty bitty tiny weenie peenie is smaller, more deformed, and drippy-pustulant than Algors’.

          • Tim says:

            “”So—you may think this law should go farther…

            bobbo, I don’t know who would think that?? I wonder what kind of sick, twisted fuck comes up with this twisted, reeking, maleable carnage-colored tripe. You have got to consider the stated intent of the authors over the past few months.

            {if you’re reading it correctly, and i’m wrong then just pretend it is opposite day because Obama}

          • Tim says:

            Considering it futher, I do see where you get ‘want it to go farther,’ bobbo;

            I’m pretty sure he’s not *honestly* sympathetic here — he’s a greesy Waco coveruper:

            “”The senator wasn’t certain about the impact on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying he didn’t know how Assange makes his money under the bill’s definition of a “covered journalist.”

            “”Schumer discussed the bill’s provisions and how, if it became law, it might affect journalist Glenn Greenwald, who reported on National Security Agency’s secret surveillance based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

            “It’s probably not enough protections to (cover) him, but it’s better than current law,” Schumer said.

            It certainly *sounds* like Schmucker is being sympathetic to journalism — But he is aggressive towards the government dirt getting out. The licensed and government issued media is not going to air that dirt in any case to need the law in the first place.

            But then,

            “”The bill also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as “newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast … or motion picture for public showing.”

            ^^ These outlets are all mostly mouthpieces.

            http://huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/chuck-schumer-glenn-greenwald_n_5008524.html

          • Tim says:

            * The bill defines a journalist as a person who has a “primary intent to investigate events and procure material” in order to inform the public by regularly gathering information through interviews and observations.

            It also adds this stipulation, which is a bit more troublesome.

            * The person also must intend to report on the news at the startof obtaining any protected information and must plan to publish that news.

            “”I can see this stipulation working against whoever the government feels is worthy of the title “journalist.” News develops. It seldom has a distinct starting point. Of course, if someone is a journalist, it stands to reason that they’re always “planning” to publish their findings. But that might be a lot harder to prove when the government starts slinging subpoenas.

            http://techdirt.com/articles/20130807/13153224102/sen-feinstein-during-shield-law-debate-real-journalists-draw-salaries.shtml

  9. deowll says:

    Let’s not bother to BS about this. The purpose of this bill is to prevent people criticizing the government and its minions.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      No, thats not the purpose … at all.

      Can you read … at all?

      • MikeN says:

        You have shown that you cannot read. Or perhaps merely that you cannot understand what you read.

      • spsffan says:

        Yes, we can read. Particularly, between the lines. And between the lines, this shouts censorship of THE PEOPLE, by THE STATE.

        The first amendment says nothing about who constitutes the press.

  10. Captain Obvious says:

    Poor Richard’s Alamanc wouldn’t qualify.

  11. Ignamonious says:

    I wonder what John Young over at http://cryptome.org thinks about this??

  12. Tim says:

    I wonder where those like Drudge fit in where they *compost* and link to news stories that others wrote??

    I think we know where that would leave drudge… “Hey, Matt…Why’d ya link to infowars, hmmm?”

  13. bobbo, no lawyer, but I can read says:

    Timmy–I see you are struggling. Not hard to understand when our good Ed misses the import of this legislation the same way you do. Except…you do “have it” correctly for a few sentences, then you lapse back.

    Its real simple….even Mickey understands what I clearly said and what is clearly OBVIOUS.

    Currently, under FEDERAL LAW—reporters have NO RIGHT AT ALL to protect their sources. NADA===ZERO===NOTHING.

    This bill is seeking to give them………..SOMETHING.

    Now, when I do the maths, something is BETTER THAN nothing. See how that works?

    If this bill ONLY gave protection to reporters of Publicly Traded Print Corporations=====>that would be BETTER THAN NOTHING.

    If this bill ONLY gave protection to reporters of Websites that have been in business for 5 years AND received a salary of more than 1000/week AND wore red socks======>that would be BETTER THAN NOTHING.

    To get the issue as wrong headed as you have is simply human. To get the issue as wrong headed as you have and to continue to argue your point after your error is pointed out to you is being a SILLY HOOMAN.

    To argue this issue demonstrates how useful guns are is: head up your ass stupid and you should give thanks every day that breathing is an autonomic function.

    ….hmmm….I wonder what Third Party would fix this??? I think that if the law were that anybody could say anything they wanted to and the law could not ask them how they know what they are saying would not destroy society===ie, no duty for a citizen to testify about crimes that are ongoing or in the planning stages. But I don’t think that would be real smart. Whats needed is some balance? Not all or nothing as silly hoomans are so want to argue for. Talk about your waste of First Amendment rights. But why take the time to think thru an issue when you can flap your lips RIGHT NOW?

    Yes–this law is an excellent start and I think sorely needed. Once passed, we First Amendment and Thinking Rationally supporters can start working on getting it to cover WikiLeaks. My first very quick read of the subject gave me the impression they would be covered…..but mabye I have that wrong. Atleast the NY Times would have protection…..AND THAT IS A GOOD THING.

    Yea, verily.

    Learn to fucking read.

    • Tim says:

      So. It’s back to free speach then?? or free hearing?? on where the speach is allowed to eminate from??

      I’ve thought about it alot, really; This is the best I could come up with —

      Space 1999 Devil’s Planet {free speach scene}:
      http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wOlPSll4Gt8#t=609

    • Tim says:

      “”If this bill ONLY gave protection to reporters of Websites that have been in business for 5 years AND received a salary of more than 1000/week AND wore red socks======>that would be BETTER THAN NOTHING.

      Colorful. But it has been pointed out that the protection would only rarely apply to the regulated outlets anyways as they are lapdogs. Now, it has also been pointed out that any journalist who wishes to wake up with this law under the tree has most likely just ‘cock-blocked’ themselves in the leveling up.

      • bobbo, no lawyer, but I can read says:

        No, you still don’t get it.

        Third Strike: Something is better than nothing.

        More subtle, and even debatable as it comes down to definitions: Freedom of Speech is not directly affected. This bill would ENCOURAGE freedom of speech by not chilling the consequences of doing so. But chilling does not prevent.

        Cool huh?

        • Tim says:

          Something is not better than nothing if one happens to exist as an Bose-Einstien condensate…

          Just ask {cough,… stupid medicalmarijuanastrains.com} noname or pedro. <– I didn't start the fire….

          • Tim says:

            p.s.

            It’s a jab at you not being very scientificy. That stuff is *cool*… as cool as one is able to get without 4-beam scalar-interoferemetric nuclear demagnitization / spin decoupling schemes.

            I’m hinting that you may want to obtain knowledge from noname and Pedro. Funny and sadistic, I know. But, knowledge is knowledge…

            pretty cool, indeed…

    • MiniTrue inspector #12 says:

      learn to fuck while reading

      derp

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        I did that once, and it pissed her off.

        I learned not to do that again.

        Pragmatism in Action.

    • jpfitz says:

      Ha, Wikileaks covered by the first. Not in this Amerika, not in this US of A. NEVER!!!

      “There had been a time when we thought that a “media shield” law was a good idea. Such a law would make it explicit that journalists don’t have to give up their sources. However, over the many, many years of the debate concerning such a law, we noticed a troubling pattern, in that politicians kept wanting to narrowly limit who was a “journalist,” often saying amateur journalists don’t count. Senator Lindsey Graham even explicitly stated that he wasn’t sure if bloggers deserved First Amendment protections. A completely out of touch Senator Dianne Feinstein insisted that “real journalists” draw salaries from big media companies. When Wikileaks first became a big deal, those working on the legislation actually worked hard to make sure that Wikileaks would not be covered.”

      http://techdirt.com/articles/20140322/07522826657/senator-schumer-more-less-admits-his-media-shield-law-wont-protect-actual-journalists.shtml

      Wikileaks about a tiny country worth a read.

      http://truth-out.org/news/item/19512-wikileaks-cables-about-a-tiny-country-like-iceland-expose-the-dark-depths-of-american-empire

    • Tim says:

      bobbo, the collaborators have not even hidden their intentions. look at the leaking climate they’re in — liars made of them all. They’re also running scared with so many gaining information from unofficial sources. Faux and CNN ratings are in the toilet and rapidly following in the footflops of the fanciest of fibbing fools giddily holding hands and circling the drain right along with all the likes of Peirce (step all over my own dick) Morgan and Michelle (that puppy wasn’t even real) Maulkin wrapped up in a slugs’ copulant, dripping, dropping, hermorphraditic embrace.

      I don’t care what the words are bobbo — and we can’t pretend to know what they are going to say the words mean (it’s probably classified; like how gather,collect,spy,retain,index,query are quite amorphous and secret to slaves). I do know that Schumer is a very decieptful snake, one of the worst, IMHO, with the worst of all the usual cronies wooing over him.

      I don’t want any law and its accompanying conditions from the federal government; especially if it says “we’re here to help…”

      **“Well, you remember, a few years ago there was a discussion about the Fairness Doctrine, and whether they would go after talk radio,” Cornyn says.

      **“Talk radio, I think, the left feels as a threat. Now, you know, you start to put the dots together and the FCC’s recent discussion about placing monitors in newsrooms, you begin to see that this administration wants to control the information that people get and particularly any information that might be critical of them – which is, as you pointed out in the first instance… the function of a free press: to give people unbiased and factual information they can use to make their own decisions, not to collaborate with government in squashing speech that people find unfavorable,”

      Also, I guess it would be kind of nice to be exempted from reporting or testifying about a personally witnessed crime — like, if Amy Goodman saw a bunch of feds around a corner with an ACME dynamite kit one fine september morning??

      **His “fundamental problem” with the bill, though, is that it would exempt journalists from being subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury if they witness a crime.

      “For example, if you’ve witnessed a crime taking place, you or I would both have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and come to testify to what we’ve seen. This idea of saying you could have information about a crime and you are immunized to having to partake in a basic act of American citizenship strikes me as pretty odd to say the least,” he says.

      http://breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/26/Exclusive-Cornyn-Rips-Schumer-s-Media-Shield-Law

    • Tim says:

      “”….hmmm….I wonder what Third Party would fix this??? I think that if the law were that anybody could say anything they wanted to and the law could not ask them how they know what they are saying would not destroy society

      bobbo, its not so much that as a matter of personal violation here. To use an analogy: like how some choose to listen to music — on the run, 50 songs a minute; or relaxed in a couch, beer-slushied up, and some 2 hour cheese from some decomposing composer or anything in between.

      This *new media* is as a plugin to the internet. I consider the internet an extention of my body. It’s a personal matter. I don’t want the government to tell me what specia of media i’ve got lodged up under my virtual and vestigial fingernails..

      The internet is an extention of my body and I want the government to keep it’s laws off it.

  14. jpfitz says:

    Uncle Dave, the link for the article has been changed or hijacked.

    • Uncle Dave says:

      Thanks! See the Update at the top of the post.

      • jpfitz says:

        Still no article, Uncle Dave.

        How about this link?
        Yeah, I know it’s the dreaded by some Politico site.

        “Schumer took the stage for the conference about the press and national security, a George Polk Awards conference hosted by The New York Times, after a discussion between journalists Barton Gellman, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the journalists who worked with Edward Snowden to publish his leaks about the National Security Agency.

        The moderator, journalist Bill Keller, asked Schumer whether his shield law would help Greenwald, who lives in Brazil out of a concern he wouldn’t be protected in his work were he to return to the United States.

        “Yes. … There would be a judge who would have to rule that bringing Glenn Greenwald forward to reveal his sources would protect the future security of the United States, that’s a lot better” than the current situation, Schumer said. “It’s probably not enough protections to satisfy him, for sure, but it’s certainly better than current law.”

        http://politico.com/story/2014/03/media-shield-bill-senate-104898.html#ixzz2x812UV7t

  15. jpfitz says:

    George Polk Award, who for?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Polk

    It’s all a sham. Vote all these ass wipes OUT. Who to replace with is the question to be answered.

    Web pages disappearing is a bad sign guys and gals. Blatant misdirection and feeding us horse shit.

    First amendment, ha.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      It is a constant fight….all tricks engaged.

  16. jpfitz says:

    If these “news” stiflers get their way, biting cable programs like the link below will never see the light of day in a few years. Not a fan of the program but…It’s fucking television, change the channel if you don’t like.

    Guess what’s next on the agenda if not already, as bobbo said “it is a constant fight…all tricks engaged.” Meaning to me all forms of communication will be sanctioned by executive order or the hill. We will need more than the voting booth if this vein continues to flow. I’m sure bobbo means something totally opposite of my projection, sorry bobbo.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Thats a great dramatisation but SERIOUSLY…the OP has is all about THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE POSTING and concerned about.

      The op is about: Congress trying to pass a law STRENGTHENING THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

      Christ===buy a clue. SOMETHING is better than nothing. ITS PROGRESS. Take the bill…pass it…and make it better.

      What looney reverse logic/emotions are you operating on? Think it thru. Recognize it. Deal with the Pros and the Cons, the BALANCE of competing interests.

      ……….and my apologies to Mike and Liberty Lover above…they also saw and posted, at least initially, what the real issue being presented here is.

      analogy—you are stranded in the desert with no water and need a gallon to make it out. Caravan comes by and says they need the water too, but they will give you what they can spare: one quart. By the logic you display here, you would refuse the quart because you need/want a gallon. TAKE THE QUART…it will give you a day more to look for more water.

      Easy peasy.

      • jpfitz says:

        Without protections for new media and nontraditional journalists, the Freedom Flow of Information Act may very well end up doing little more than anointing a new set of gatekeepers—established traditional media organizations who call the shots about what leaks are published and what aren’t, instead of the relatively open social media and blog spheres.

        Bobbo, above is the last paragraph of the op’s article I couldn’t find. My take is still the same after getting to read this than politicos article. Now take those apologies back. Har.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          I’m not following you jp. YES, we can all think the law doesn’t go far enough…but…its better than what we have now.

          NOW—WE HAVE===NOTHING.

          Deal with that issue. It was the MSM that published the Pentagon Papers. It was the MSM that published the WikiLeaks. Snowden…I forget.

          FIRST===you establish IN LAW the FACT of a Federal Journalist Source Shield Law. THEN you expand it…easily contemplated under equal protection case law.

          You are stranding yourself in the Desert of Ideas. You have made perfection the enemy of the Good.

          Please address the relevant issue: do you want a quart of water when dying of thirst, or do you demand the maximum you can carry?

          • Tim says:

            psst… {hint/spoiler} — Bobbo was on a golf course and had to unladen himself into some approved container…some kind of tax writeoff about sunshit or something?? Just keep the piss under your hat like I do to feed your retarded friend’s tomatoes or repel reptillian congressmen.

      • jpfitz says:

        Congress strengthening The First, where have you been since that tragic Tuesday. Don’t even mention Putin or Snowden, in a favorable light. Ha, First what.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Which tragic Tuesay, any and every day of the week, are you referring to? Is that when Citizens United was issued?===aka===the death knell sell out of America to the Bildeberger Group?

          What?

          • Tim says:

            He would be referring to our *new Pearl Harbor* as defined by a bunch of dirty old neocons.

  17. jpfitz says:

    To be continued…

  18. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Timmmay, fully rotating off his nut says:
    3/27/2014 at 8:33 am

    bobbo, the collaborators have not even hidden their intentions. look at the leaking climate they’re in — liars made of them all. They’re also running scared with so many gaining information from unofficial sources. Faux and CNN ratings are in the toilet and rapidly following in the footflops of the fanciest of fibbing fools giddily holding hands and circling the drain right along with all the likes of Peirce (step all over my own dick) Morgan and Michelle (that puppy wasn’t even real) Maulkin wrapped up in a slugs’ copulant, dripping, dropping, hermorphraditic embrace. //// ummmh…..what? Your characterization of Maulkin is right on the money without any disrespect for our mollusk brethren.

    I don’t care what the words are bobbo — //// THERE IT IS. In fact: “We Think with Words….” and when you don’t care what the words are……………you aren’t thinking at all. Just as you demonstrate with this very post.

    and we can’t pretend to know what they are going to say the words mean (it’s probably classified; like how gather,collect,spy,retain,index,query are quite amorphous and secret to slaves). //// The words once written do take on a life of their own===AS INTERPRETED===by other people. Other branches of Gubment: the Pres and the SCOTUS.

    I do know that Schumer is a very decieptful snake, one of the worst, IMHO, with the worst of all the usual cronies wooing over him. /// In the slimy snake pit of Congress, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell one slime bucket from the next. A POX ON THEM ALL……and yet their words “have a life of their own.”

    I don’t want any law and its accompanying conditions from the federal government; especially if it says “we’re here to help…” //// BS. The status of “no applicable law” is a condition itself. Beyond vacuous to say you don’t want any law. Fact is: you got law whether you want it or not. Grow up.

    **“Well, you remember, a few years ago there was a discussion about the Fairness Doctrine, and whether they would go after talk radio,” Cornyn says. ///// Fine, but this has NOTHING to do with this SHIELD LAW.

    **“Talk radio, I think, the left feels as a threat. Now, you know, you start to put the dots together and the FCC’s recent discussion about placing monitors in newsrooms, you begin to see that this administration wants to control the information that people get and particularly any information that might be critical of them – which is, as you pointed out in the first instance… the function of a free press: to give people unbiased and factual information they can use to make their own decisions, not to collaborate with government in squashing speech that people find unfavorable,” /////Fine, but this has NOTHING to do with this SHIELD LAW.

    Also, I guess it would be kind of nice to be exempted from reporting or testifying about a personally witnessed crime — like, if Amy Goodman saw a bunch of feds around a corner with an ACME dynamite kit one fine september morning?? //// Closer, but the duty to give first person witness testimony has NOTHING to do with this SHIELD LAW.

    **His “fundamental problem” with the bill, though, is that it would exempt journalists from being subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury if they witness a crime. //// Good. All good people should give first person witness information/testimony. Anarchy rules otherwise.

    “For example, if you’ve witnessed a crime taking place, you or I would both have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and come to testify to what we’ve seen. This idea of saying you could have information about a crime and you are immunized to having to partake in a basic act of American citizenship strikes me as pretty odd to say the least,” he says. //// Two different issues —not to be conflated into one issue and fubar’d all over the place.

    In conclusion, neither you nor jp seem to understand you currently stand NAKED WITHOUT PROTECTION before the evils that you mindless regurgitate. This proposed FIRST EVER FEDERAL shield law may or may not go far enough but it is some protection which is better than NO protection.

    Youse Guys post pure gibberish and nonsense failing to come to grips with the relevant issues.

    Very bad form.

    • jpfitz says:

      Bobbo………The point is if we have to discuss The First then The First is in danger of being formulated for governmental control. I don’t mean the FCC. The Shield is a legal barrier which can and has been broken. Wiki and Greenwald reported, the law doesn’t protect you when lady liberty pulls up half her blindfold and sneers. You’d better run for the hills at that point.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

        jp==thank you for your continued polite but rather blind and illogical concerns.

        EVERYTHING is ALWAYS open for discussion. That is in fact what the First Amendment and FREEEEEEDOM of speech is all about. What do you for ever mean or think you mean by saying that discussion is IN ANY WAY some sort of violation of something? =============>You make no sense.

        The government IS ALWAYS IN CONTROL. By passing laws or by not passing laws. Both are control mechanisms….the way I best understand what I think you are trying to get to.

        ……..and FOR THE FOURTH FRICKIN TIME==right now the Gubment IS IN TOTAL CONTROL and OPPRESSING the freedom of the Press as currently there is NO JOURNALIST SHIELD LAW. The bill will be an excellent first go at THE GOVERNMENT PROTECTING OUR FREE PRESS.

        The very position you advocate for is AGAINST YOUR STATED INTEREST.

        just fucking LOOK at what your values are and what you are arguing for and against.

        YOU SAY: “The Shield is a legal barrier which can and has been broken. //// THAT IS WRONG. for the FIFTH TIME: there IS NO SHIELD. and your position is that there should be one.

        SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING. and in this case a pretty good something is better than the oppressive nothing we have had for the last 250 years.

        Right now: the NEW YORK TIMES and the BOBBOBONESBOOBS website can both be brought before a judge and compelled to provide names, dates, sources, notes, videoes ==ALL INFORMATION one has or can speculate about ==or face contempt charges and be put in jail until divulging the sought after info. THIS BILL would provide protection to the NYT. That is a good thing. I….. will fend for myself meantimes.

        YOU SAY: “…the law doesn’t protect you when lady liberty pulls up half her blindfold and sneers.. //// THAT IS THE WHOLE FRICKING POINT. and what this law is meant to “help” (sic==if you must) correct.

        One of us is missing the OBVIOUS. My money is on its ….. you……because the MATH is on my side.

        jp==please address the issue head on: is something more than nothing or do you have a special math that you are applying?

        • Tim says:

          fuck. me. running. Once, again; Something is not always better than nothing —

          “”Mmmm. Some mandatory bio-accumulative arsenic: What? Don’t worry, it’s in your fish, air, and water…

          “”Hey, this hydrogen cyanide smells just like almonds. yum….

          “”Is it true that semen tastes salty?

          “”Triphsyloban morphate. I remember, smells like apple pie…

          “”Did you fart??

          • undocumented intern page says:

            errata: change. add. .. *you’re soaking in it…*

    • Tim says:

      Blather! Nice, thoughtful review, though; Thanks for the time put into the consideration.

      You can’t see the meaning for the words, bobbo — Funny, I never took you for really hiding jews in the closet from grammer nazis.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

        WHAT am I missing?

        Be specific.

        That is what I have done for you. AS in: the press has zero protection right now for their sources. Therefore ANY law that gives ANY such protection is an improvement.

        WHAT am I missing?

        Go=============>

        • Tim says:

          That shorter than usual schoolbus that just blew by? I mean, really. It was pretty short, dude. Like, this little tiny van of a schoolbus with like six windows in it… Were you supposed to be driving that??

        • Tim says:

          **WHAT am I missing?

          Be specific……………..bla, bla, bla…..

          What am I missing?

          ————————————

          Well, now your shill of a government doll ass has forced me to go on a tangent and demonstrate an interpretation to the answer *what do you see?*

          http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hR69EKvcW-4#t=107

    • Tim says:

      First off, please stop using ‘anarchy’ as if you only always mean the sense of discord/chaos. I’m an god-fearing anarchist who happens to feel that gobment is a lie — your comments are offensive to me; I understand — It’s probably because you are black.

      Second: please stop posting my comments parcedxparced — stop this format now. tl;dr . seriously. dude.

      Third: I forgot the most important point, thanks to having to respond to former stupid protocol snafus.

      • moveon census 2013 says:

        he’s being as black as the ace of spades.

        • Tim says:

          ^^ I don’t know who this form-filling fag is but that is not the most important comment of which i was thinking.

  19. jpfitz says:

    I am under the impression that freedom of the press is included in The First. You say that 250 years has passed without any shield.
    What does The First cover. Why is a new legal shield needed if The First hasn’t been breached. I am an idealist, admittedly, especially around springtime. Why is a shield needed if the government played by the rules, being all powerful and the greatest country in the world.

    I think my passion or misdirected anger of the shenanigans going on lately has us arguing, though instead of being on the opposite sides we’re actually agreeing. Forget that water in the desert. I’ll have a beer, or three.

    • bobbo, no lawyer, but I can read says:

      Thank you jp.

      YOU have committed the SIN of…………..CONFLATION.

      Freedom of the Press—MEANS====>they can print what they want to WITHOUT going to jail.

      Freedom of the Press—-DOES NOT MEAN====>you can report that xyz is killing people to cover up a votes for dollars issue and when the cops come knocking you don’t have to tell them the details of how you came by this information.

      TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

      Telling what you know===FREEDOM OF SPEECH and of the Press.

      Telling how you came to know it===not protected absent having a “Shield Law.” The privilege against SELF INCRIMINATION is in a sense a personal shield law provided by the Constitution. There is no such similar right for the PRESS to go mum on their sources.

      Thats how you read all the time about REPORTERS GOING TO JAIL for not giving up their sources.

      This law will give some such protection….it is a good thing===and yes I don’t think it should be extended to any asshat with a website.

      How is this not CLEAR after it has been explained 6 times now?

      • Tim says:

        ThATs vERY, VEry nIcE, bObBo. NOW WhY DoN’T yOU Go AND PaY EcA tHE eXTRa ROyALtY fOr His SpEciAL ProPrIETarY KEYBoarD yOu BORROwed.

        derp.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

          ECA’s keyboard is proprietary to himself. Not what I do at all.

          ONLY FOR EMPHASIS.

          ……….indeed, I am yelling.

          I know it still won’t get thru to you, but I assume there are a few, if not many, visitors who read and don’t post. When they join a discussion half way down, or from the bottom up, its good to draw their attention to the key words.

          Short buses aside.

          • Tim says:

            tehe…

            ; Windows-C toggles random Caps

            #c::
            If SavedCapsLock=
            {
            GetKeyState,SavedCapsLock,CapsLock,T
            SetTimer, RandomCL, 25
            }
            Else
            {
            SetTimer, RandomCL, Off
            If SavedCapsLock=D
            SetCapsLockState,On
            Else
            SetCapsLockState,Off
            SavedCapsLock=
            }
            Return

            RandomCL:
            Random, rand, 0, 1
            if (rand)
            SetCapslockState, On
            else
            SetCapslockState, Off
            return

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            WitchCraft!!!

            …………BURN THE WARLOCK!!!!!!

      • jpfitz says:

        No no no no no no, I refuse to accept a org telling us who are the FUCKING REAL JOURNALISTS.

        Sounds like media control to please TPTB. And blogs and video blogs are news creators.

        This supposed shield will refuse the right to press of unsponsored or rouge reporters. Having to give up your source should always be protected.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

          Right now…there is no protection for ANY journalist/reporter.

          Attitudes like yours will continue this situation.

          Why not pass a law that first gives protection to main stream media types and continue to work to expand that coverage?

          Bad Thinking.

          • Tim says:

            Ever heard of a Trojan Horse, bobbo?? Of course, that’s what this is — good fruit does not spring forth from rotten trees.

            Ohh, what a shiny thing; I ain’t never had a thing like this before… I wonder what’s inside?? Could it be a working version of this thing?? Could it lead to inner peace?? Aandddd….. It’s another Yahoo! toolbar.

            freetrojans.com

            Funny how some see shiny new and some see a turd. Maybe it’s like those blind guys touching a giant something. You’re fumbling around a sharp and shiny claw; I’m standing back with binoculars wondering if that’s ShamWow you’re using to polish off that tiny bit of toenail which seems to still be partially attacted to that giant, defiled and degrading demon I just watched Schumer defecate out — I should have an app that warns of the likelyhood of impending Schumer corruption. floods, tornados, fire, drones, nuclear, bees, …, Schumers’ shit, …

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            There is no Trojan Horse issue here.

            Youse guys are nuts.

            SOMETHING is better than NOTHING.

            Some protection is better than no protection.

            Simple.

  20. jpfitz says:

    Bobbi….You’re on the left side of the country. Where did you get the youse from in youse guys. That’s a Jersey thing.

    Question to all, where has mspod been?
    Does anybody know if he’s all right. Plus where’s orchid, and a few others are mia.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior history buff says:

      I read. a lot. I find regional dialects interesting and often amusing. Often some history and culture in the distinctions. Youse probably came from the movies though–1930-40. But I’m a snob, so’s I says I read a lot==you know, to impress the ladies.

    • tim says:

      “”Question to all, where has mspod been?

      Or that guy alway being on fire with riteous indignation over diverted photons and the cancer of room 641a??