TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:The first reporter to go to jail instead of giving up a source was in 1848 so it's not some new thing. I'll bet early press had no belief they could witness crimes

Clearly that's not what we were talking about or what this amendment is about. Why did you decide to introduce this bogus argument?

Umm, yes it is what we are talking about. Why would the sources need to be concealed? Either they (the reporter) have info about some criminality or they, by receiving certain information, are a party to the criminal offence. Now that is just the criminal side and there is also the civil side but clearly it is a big part of what this law, since it passed, is about.

You seem pathologically incapable of distinguishing between witnessing a crime and reporting a crime....which makes me wonder.....do you work for the government???

VoiceofReason wrote:Texas Family Code, Chapter 261, 261.101 requires that professionals such as teachers, doctors, nurses, or child daycare workers must make a verbal report within 48 hours. Failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of up to 180 days and/or a fine of up to $2,000. Emphasis mine.
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/victims/childabuse.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Suspected child abuse would be based on the observations of the professional, not an interview with a third party claiming the abuse. If a child comes to the hospital with two broken arms, of course the professionals should try to find out how it happened. If they suspect abuse, they should report it.

If a reporter witnessed a crime, they have an obligation, like every other citizen, to report it. If a reporter interviews someone who claims they witnessed a crime or committed one themselves, they have no obligation to report it to authorities.

EEllis wrote:The first reporter to go to jail instead of giving up a source was in 1848 so it's not some new thing. I'll bet early press had no belief they could witness crimes

Clearly that's not what we were talking about or what this amendment is about. Why did you decide to introduce this bogus argument?

EEllis wrote:and then just not give details because they were reporters. Also lets not forget a lot of times the crime is talking to reporters especially when dealing with Federal issues. Whistleblowing may be one thing but what about people giving up real secrets for pure politics?

Given the selective prosecution of that "crime", it's questionable that you even introduced it.

EEllis wrote:The justice department already has rules making subpoenas to the press the last option for federal law enforcement not the first.

Oh, gee. That makes it so much better. We promise we won't violate the Constitution first. We'll just do it when we need to.

EEllis wrote:What about civil cases? Say someone lies and gives some false info to the press. Should the reporter be able to deny you the ability to find out and sue someone who damaged you? It's not some simple situation that is because "cops can't solve crime anymore".

First of all, a good reporter will have two solid sources, not one. Secondly, it isn't the reporter's job to hand you your civil case on a platter. What makes you think it should be?

The purpose of the Constitution is to tie the hands of the government so they cant abuse their power. Every time we ignore their abuses, we chip away at freedom. Eventually we arrive where we are now. The Constitution means very little, and the President routinely ignores the laws he is sworn to uphold. No one does anything about it, so the abuses continue and grow larger daily. It won't be much longer before America is gone forever, if we don't start drawing the line.

It's funny that we say, "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned", yet we're so eager to help the government throw people in the clink for what we perceive as "crimes' because we don't think it should be so hard for the government to jail people. If someone commits a crime, leave the reporter alone. Prove a crime was committed. Do your job without taking unConstitutional shortcuts because it's too hard.

If a doctor, lawyer or psychologist witnesses a crime, they have a duty to report it. They do not have a duty to report that a patient told them they committed a crime. Nor does a reporter. And the government should no more go after a reporter than they would a doctor, lawyer or psychologist. Reporter shield laws would not be necessary if the government acted lawfully.

Isn't it odd that the Founding Fathers saw no need to provide "special protections" to reporters? Apparently it never occurred to them that the government might use its power and might to coerce reporters into revealing their sources. Apparently they thought that if a reporter committed a crime, they should go to jail like everyone else, but if they reported a crime someone else committed they had not committed a crime and could not be threatened with jail. Apparently additional protections are now needed because the government has overstepped its bounds and chosen to harass reporters into revealing their sources because law enforcement is abysmally incapable of developing their own cases and convicting people based on evidence. So now the government gets to decide who's protected and who's not and by doing so compromise the integrity of reporters by forcing them to play nice with the government or be subject to rule changes that place them in legal jeopardy.

It's all so complicated. Far too complicated for us simple citizens to understand, so we don't get that special privilege. Has nothing to do with rights, though. It's all about privileges. This is the current state of "logic" and "reason" in this country.

EEllis wrote:So you think the better way to go is to limit everyone including the press?

No, I think free speech is free speech, and the government shouldn't be able to intimidate ANYONE for writing something, true or false, on their blog, in their newspaper, on their tv channel, on the facebook page or anywhere else. Where in the Constitution does it say that if the government doesn't like your speech they can arrest you and force you to divulge your sources for the information if you want to be free again?

EEllis wrote:Again you don't even know what you are complaining about just that it's got to be bad because govt is bad. You are wrong about the bill and it's effects The blogger is covered. How can you be spewing this venom when you didn't bother to know what the bill says?

So now demanding that the Constitution be honored is spewing venom? At least we know exactly where you stand.

EEllis wrote:Your right they are not granting a right but giving a protection. Want the truth? Read the dang bill.

You're so smart. Tell me when I didn't read it.

EEllis wrote:Oh so make sure no one has protection, yep that's the smart way to go

Oh, so make sure that some have more elite status than others. What bad could come from that?

EEllis wrote:This does not remove 1st A protection for anyone. It gives added protection for media.

Now think about what you just wrote. "Granting" added protection to a special class of citizen is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. If a professional reporter cannot go to jail for refusing to reveal a source but I can, then how do I have the same level of speech rights as him or her? I do not.

You don't get what a right is.

EEllis wrote:Laws can't remove constitutional rights so what the heck are you guys worried about?

This is so laughable it barely deserves a response. Google EPA takes property. Study how the due process clause has been used to justify all manner of unconstitutional laws, including Obamacare.

EEllis wrote:You can't have it both ways. And by the way do you even know what the bill says? Because your "examples" have no connection to what the bill is about. It doesn't protect what reporters "report". That is already protected and this bill has nothing to do with that. It protects sources not content.

Without the source you have nothing to report. The law strips the ability of a citizen to report a story that requires protecting a source. If a blogger writes about an egregious governmental behavior, the veracity of which he obtained from confidential sources, then he will be put in jail. A reporter, writing the same story, will not. How in God's name can you not see that as an abridgement of our rights?

Government grants nothing. They only take away. They're not granting special rights to reporters. They stealing our free speech rights by governmental intimidation.

Make excuses all you want. It won't change the truth.

EEllis wrote:It doesn't restrict or effect speech at all. Its only effect adding protection for the press and on what we consider press, by and large is more forgiving than what we would've considered press for the last 50 years. Posting gossip on facebook should not entitle you to extra protection and that is what the issue was.

Are you insane? Read some of the "broadsides" written in the early days of our Republic. They had no basis whatsoever in fact and were blatant attempts to smear politicians. Yet the First Amendment protected them, and they could not be harassed by the government for having written them.

ANYTHING that chills speech of ANY kind is an abridgement of the First Amendment. You'd better wake up before you're in prison wondering what you did wrong. Totalitarianism is on the march, and you are aiding it.

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?
I think stuff like this is done by sleaze-bag reporters (on both sides). It gets people to click and look at the coverage. Of course, many sheep just take the title on face value and push it across the internet.
It's no different than a car dealer advertising something that isn't available to get people into the dealership. It's about that ethical.

Boy are you wrong. Watch the video. She calls reporting "a special privilege". The purpose of the amendment is to deny bloggers (and she gets to define what that means so she can exclude places like Breitbart.com) the protections of the first amendment when they write on their blogs. And who is supporting the bill? "Legitimate" news organizations. This is a blatant attempt to stomp out the competition by rewriting the Constitution.

Since when did writing stories, true or false, become a special privilege? Since when did the First Amendment contain a clause that reads, "You can only write stories if you have the proper credentials as determined by the leviathan?

She complains that Nazi hate sites would be protected by the law. So what? Since when was America a place where the content of your speech determines whether or not you have the right to speak at all?

ADTM is spot on. The title is spot on. Your criticism is naive and foolhardy. As ADTM points out, the frog is in the water. All that is required is to turn up the heat.