TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:
Want me to feel persuaded? Tell the truth. Not the partial truth, the whole truth. Tell me about how easy it would be to amend a law designed to be reporters-only and apply it to the citizens of the USA. Then I understand your point of view and can be alarmed accordingly. Tell me that Feinstein said that the 1st Amendment is a Special Privilege and when I find that it isn't true, I'm going to write the entire thing off as grand-standing and theater. I'll let the sheep forward it around based on title only.

If you're really concerned with our Amendments, why aren't you up in arms about the fact that we can't carry a long gun in public? That right has already been eroded.

Webster's definition of "TITLE": the name given to something (such as a book, song, or movie) to identify or describe it.

The title in question meets the criteria of that definition nicely. If you have your own dictionary that defines English words differently, please reference said dictionary, so that we could all get on the same page about the semantics of it all.

As common sense suggests, a title CANNOT contain the entire message. It may contain an author's opinion, general position, description, etc... Subjective or objective.

As to the long guns issue, that's a whole other story that even likeminded 2nd Amendment supporters can't agree on. So, it warrants an entirely different thread, although I am sure it exists already.

I am and will be "up in arms" about any aspect of the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment stands out, because most of the other rights hinge on it, and ANY legislation about it is BAD. Free speech should not be legislated, period.

And I cannot fathom some people here posting that "it doesn't limit anything", it "provides protection for the media", etc., etc., etc. How blind this is!

ANY LEGISLATION REGARDING THE 1ST AMENDMENT IS BAD, REGARDLESS OF THE VERBIAGE, THE INTENT, OR THE AUTHOR'S IDEOLOGY.

Free speech is already free, what good can they add to it?

Remember: the process of political enslavement is gradual. In the 1930's Germany, people didn't go to bed one night only to wake up the next morning with political arrests, oppression, ghettos, and concentration camps. It took several years, and many of those, who refused to see the true nature of Nazism in the beginning and went along with it, ended up imprisoned or killed, too.

When it comes to free speech, it has its own way of balancing out, without laws. If someone will be an idiot or a bigot and will say something dumb, he or she will endure other types of consequences (e.g. loss of business, friends, etc.). There should be no law against or even protecting reporters, their sources, or regular people. Because the true free speech and free ABSOLUTELY

MoJo wrote:"Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it." George Santayana

Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned.

If you haven't done it, learn about how easily a small group of thugs took over a whole nation and plunged the world into the most horrible conflict in history. Do it before it's too late.

Niemoller and his quote were exactly what I thought about, when I read the article. I think that for many people born in this country, it is hard to see how this gradual descent into primordial fascism can happen in America. Those, who know history well and/or those, who have experienced "freedomless" environment personally, are attuned to the ominous "little" things that are so clear to me in this proposed law.

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. ~ Ronald Reagan.

We, in this country, are not immune against tyranny. And, like in Nazi Germany, the change will not be sudden, but gradual. This law is nothing, but a small step toward limited rights...

EEllis wrote:I think the title is very misleading and not even close to the truth. What is being discussed isn't 1st A rights but legislative protections for reporters. A Media Shield Law is so Franklin wouldn't have to publish under a pseudonym not so some kid who scrawls on a wall with chalk gets special protections. This wouldn't restrict anyone's speech just protect the sources of real reporters. Now I'm not for a narrow definition of reporting but trying to pretend this is limiting rights when, in July, an appeals court said that reporters can be forced to give up their sources and that it isn't a 1st A right, is just ignoring the facts.

This point of view is simply looking at the semantics of the 1st Amendment. The title clearly indicates the EFFECT of the proposed law.

The proposed law has the INTENT of limiting free speech. It is accomplished via removing the protection for the source of information. Is it a huge step against free speech? No. Is it against free speech in general? Yes. If these "protections" are removed, YOUR information will be limited, because it simply will either never be learned, or it will not be published.

These protections exist EXACTLY for the reason of making information available to... WHOM? The regular folk — us. If this law will go into effect, who will lose? Again, us. There is no justification for that.

Therefore, I'll sat it again: the title goes to the essence and the effect of the proposed law. The title stands.

People, who believe that this title is over the top, are both the reason and the effect of the political apathy in this country.

They say: "We are not reporters, so this law is not about us. This title is the work of the alarmists."

Yet, 20 years ago this amendment to the law was inconceivable, because these fascists were allowed to gain ground inch by inch.

The consequence? The most basic of rights — the right to speak freely, is being taken away... Yes, from journalists and the regular folk with blogs and alternative media... This time.

Do you think they will stop at that? There is an old adage: "If you seat a pig at the table, he will put his feet on the table."

What do you think is going to happen next to the 1st Amendment? Things don't get better without effort.

cb1000rider wrote:

ATDM wrote: The title may not be accurate in the specifics, but it is DEFINITELY accurate in its generality.

Why re-post an title that is intentionally misleading if you know better?

We'd probably be better off....

Again: you are looking at this issue VERY SUPERFICIALLY! I have lived through a regime like that, and you, apparently, have NOT! You have NO CLUE what this can lead to.

The reporter, who came up with this title did NOT mislead anyone at all. He was able to see through the technicality of one law that would apply to reporters only, and then may be amended to apply to the citizenry. If this doesn't alarm you, you are nearsighted. The title stands! If you have experience with a totalitarian regime personally, share it. Maybe then I will change my opinion.

For now the title is true to the essence and it stands.

RoyGBiv wrote:Not quite what the title suggests.
Let's not all go breathless, makes us look like those other guys.

The title may not be accurate in the specifics, but it is DEFINITELY accurate in its generality. And I believe that people should be aware.

This title will apply fully in the future, if this continues, because the proverbial frog gets to boil to death slowly, not suddenly.

Given what I know about history, there is no reaction to this that would be considered an OVERreaction. That famous slippery slope is not a myth!

She is bringing her KalifoЯnian ideology to the Federal legislature, which means that it affects us.

Have y'all not heard of The Bill of Privileges in the Constitution?

And who votes for scumbag politicians like that?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/feinst ... ege-right/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;