��Fascist: Matt Drudge blasts Dianne Feinstein for trying to define who is and isn'��t a real reporter��

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D.-Calif., thinks a proposed media shield law should be applied only to real reporters,�� not basement-dwelling, pajama-clad bloggers with no professional credentials:

��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.

In other words, this hag thinks that if it's not government controlled propaganda from the wire services, edited for content, then it isn't news!

<continue>

http://twitchy.com/2013/09/13/fascist-matt-drudge-blasts-dianne-feinstein-for-trying-to-define-who-is-and-isnt-a-real-reporter/

In other words,she was just attempting to curtail the 1th Amendment!

Destroying the Constitution seems to be a habit with liberals!

I tend to agree with Sen. Feinstein. Since Internet "reporters" have no legal responsibility to be accurate, giving them legal immunity for espionage doesn't make any sense, either.

Please tell me you are not swallowing that mouthful of scum you just hacked up?

What part of free speech and free press is it you are not getting?

She wants to use a gov't cannon to kill what she is telling people is a fly, but like the Patriot Act, it will be used to silence ANYONE with an opinion that varies from the media propaganda, like Drudge, Greenwald, you, me or anyone else by simply calling them fringe, CT, or just ignoring them because they have no crony capitalist sponsors scripting their news.

One sided opinion and comment is not news, it's control! Stazi media!

I do think he is serious!

He must have been on sensory overload and the brain simply shut down!

Is there a more effective way to control opinion than silencing it now I wonder?

All that data they're collecting must not be in their favor....well an 8% approval rating of them kinda shows that, so now they just make a law to officially kill the 1st amendment..... retake their control by silencing the opposition!

Brings to mind the British bill against the Sons Of Liberty and the Tea Act. Are public executions next? They already claim they can raid, kill and imprison us indefinitly without warrant. Their militariized local law enforcement is ahead of the game on that one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty

The hag Feinstien is a liberal fascist hack!

An amendment is moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee that would essentially allow the government to determine who is a journalist for purposes of legal protection of sources. For purposes of protecting a source, a journalist under law would be anyone who:

Works or worked for ��an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service news program; magazine or other periodical or through television or radio broadcast�� These people would have to have the ��primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information. Opinion journalists might not be covered.

Bloggers and citizen journalists, citizens who commit acts of journalists without working for such an outlet would not be covered, unless it was determined that ��at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information. In other words, the government the Department of Justice�� would now determine whether primary intent was news distribution or political concerns.

Those explicitly excluded from protection include those “whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity��s work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization. Glenn Greenwald, please contact your lawyer.

Who would decide who fell within these guidelines? A “judge of the United States�� can “exercise discretion to avail the persons of the protections of this Act. But in the first instance, the DOJ would have the discretion to determine whether a person is a journalist for purposes of the law. Instead of focusing on acts of journalism, the law would identify people by employment status.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that it should not matter to citizen journalists if new protections extended to a special class of journalists created by the government, since the First Amendment does not grant any right to protect sources in the first place. When we'��re discussing the issue of adding a privilege, the issue of taking away someones First Amendment rights just isn'��t engaged.All we're doing is adding privilege to existing First Amendment rights, so there is, logically, zero First Amendment threat out of this, said Whitehouse, ignoring the fact that a massive institutional advantage would be handed to approved government outlets, thereby perverting the entire system of a free press.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) launched into the proposed bill, which he said could have the effect of excluding certain persons from enjoying the added First Amendment protections the bill would provide.�� Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) agreed, stating, ��Essentially as I understand this amendment, it protects what I would characterize as the c��orporate media. But it leaves out citizen bloggers.I don't think any protection should treat citizen bloggers who are meeting the underlying test of being primarily engaged in gathering news to report it I don't think they should be excluded because they don'��t happen to work for a media corporation. He continued:

It strikes me that we are on dangerous territory if we are drawing distinctions that are treating some engaged in the process of reporting and journalism better than others. If we are advantaging those who happen to receive a paycheck from a corporate media entity over those who happen to be citizens. I for one would have deep troubles with legislation from Congress saying we will grant special privileges if you happen to work for a corporate media interest. It seems to me the First Amendment protects the activity, not the employment status of the person engaging in it.

Americans rejecting mainstream media for UK Guardian

The fastest growing "newspaper" in America is based in Manchester, England. The Internet analytics firm Compete.com found that the number of visitors to the website of The Guardian grew by 1111.75% in August and an astounding 671,389.51% over the past year, signifying the desire for Americans to find real information about what's going on.



http://www.sott.net/article/266355-Americans-rejecting-mainstream-media-for-UK-Guardian