By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Cross-Posted at Right Wing News
At least Feinstein can spell ‘tyranny’ right. Now onto quashing the First and Second Amendments — because that’s what Marxists do. If she gets her way, bloggers and researchers can and will be hunted down and prosecuted by the thugs in our government agencies. Faster Kill Pussycat — you’ll be able to time the freedom of blogs such as this one and those that write them on a fascist egg timer. The claws are out.
Not content with disarming Americans and foisting the Obamacare monstrosity down our throats, Feinstein wants to then choke us into silence. Geez – does she have nothing better to do than play at being evil? She’s now actively opposing a media shield law that is supposedly being suggested to protect all those who write and report, along with their sources. But Feinstein won’t have any of that. Nope – she wants the First Amendment to be a privilege as opposed to a right. One guess baby who gets to dole out privileges.
Describing bloggers as 17 year-old losers, who live in their pajamas and blog from their parents’ basements, Feinstein wants to lay down the law on who is deserving of the right to free speech. Just for the record, I’m not 17 — not even close. I don’t blog in my pj’s and I don’t even have a basement. My parents now reside in heaven, so I suppose you could say this is the basement considering who our leaders are. Just sayin’. But I digress.
The final hurdle for the Judiciary Committee was defining who is a journalist in the digital era.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to “real reporters” and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.
“I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she said.
Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a “covered journalist” as someone who gathers and reports news for “an entity or service that disseminates news and information.”
The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any “legitimate news-gathering activities.”
Dave Hodges at The Common Sense Show bluntly lays it out:
In the definition introduced in Feinstein’s amendment, somebody writing for a small town paper with a circulation of 30 would receive First Amendment protections, but quality news people such as Steve Quayle, John Stadtmiller, Jeff Rense, Doug Hagmann, Stan Deyo, Michael Edwards, Alex Jones, George Noory and Matt Drudge would not be considered journalists and therefore, the First Amendment would not apply to this group of aforementioned newsmen.
With the passage of this amendment, our sources would not be privileged and many of our sources would dry up. But Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper can take bribes from the CIA to not cover certain stories, yet Feinstein thinks they deserve protection as authentic journalists.
And just in case some of you think this does not effect you… think again. Every time you post on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, you will be running the risk of violating the law and those jack booted thugs could come a-knockin’ at your door. Any time you comment on a blog or web site, Big Brother will be evaluating you and what you say. No longer will you have the First Amendment right of free speech – it will be censored speech if you are not licensed by the state and/or federal government, or approved by a court of law.
Think the government won’t do it? It has failed before, but Marxists are persistent and determined little critters. Witness Obamacare. They tried for over 20 years before getting it through. And it will go through now. You can also thank Progressives on both sides of the aisle — McCain tried to get this through before:
John McCain previously introduced a bill that would fine bloggers up to $300,000 for “offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards”.
If the bill would have been successful, this legislation would have marked the end for previously unrestrained opinions. Hiding behind the pretense of protecting our children, McCain’s legislation was referred to as the “Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act.” The legislation demands that a Stalinist-type army of informants and spies will browse various websites looking for inappropriate internet material which might pose a threat to children. McCain’s internet army would then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities and subsequent bloggers could be fined $300,000 or have faced jail time.
Anyone who has participated in online comment boards is keenly aware that they are very difficult to moderate. Some articles and news events may receive thousands of comments. Yet, one oversight by the moderator, one day off from the internet, could spell doom for the financial future of a blogger. What citizen can afford to take that chance? Hence, your right to self-expression has been sacrificed. Your first amendment right to self-expression is technically still intact. However, the personal affordability to exercise free speech would have been severely jeopardized
I don’t know about you, but I don’t have an extra $300,000 lying around and an attorney on speed dial. Feinstein’s bill is McCain redux with fines as yet undetermined. The infringement of freedom of speech is on the horizon if we don’t stop this nightmare from playing out. Can bloggers’ prison be far behind?
The Silencing of the Bloggers