Reporters To Need Government Liscences?

[INRM]

Reporters to Need Government Liscences?
Lawmaker Suggests Registry for Journalists' Background, Experience

URL: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=160997

A Michigan lawmaker says people have the right to know reporters are credible and have "good moral character," so he's proposed a procedure to license journalists and document their credentials, background and experience.

But the plan by Sen. Bruce Patterson, a Republican from the state's 7th district, is going nowhere, according to a government watchdog organization, because it would "step on" the U.S Constitution.

The plan by Patterson was reported by Fox News, which said Patterson cited the state's ability already to license professions such as automobile mechanics, plumbers and hairdressers.

However, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity said the plan is a nonstarter.

"By introducing a bill to license journalists, Michigan state Sen. Bruce Patterson is attempting to control the press and is stepping on constitutional protections," said Jason Stverak, chief of the organization that promotes social welfare and civil betterment through programs that promote journalism and the education of the public about corruption and fraud in government.

What are your opinions?

I personally believe that this is a means to control the media. If a license can be given, it can be taken away. Also if a lot of information can be collected on all reporters, the potential for data-mining can also enter the equation -- since everybody has done something wrong at some point in their life, this can open up the risk of retaliatory prosecution by the government against reporters who exposed serious government corruption and/or misconduct, as well as open the door for the government to employ blackmail against reporters to a greater to degree to silence them.


INRM

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

..which is why everyone's telling him no.

 

[Spindrift]

Reporters to Need Government Liscences?
Lawmaker Suggests Registry for Journalists' Background, Experience

URL: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=160997

What are your opinions?

I personally believe that this is a means to control the media. If a license can be given, it can be taken away. Also if a lot of information can be collected on all reporters, the potential for data-mining can also enter the equation -- since everybody has done something wrong at some point in their life, this can open up the risk of retaliatory prosecution by the government against reporters who exposed serious government corruption and/or misconduct, as well as open the door for the government to employ blackmail against reporters to a greater to degree to silence them.

INRM

Last I checked the constitution doesn't say anything about mechanics, plumbers or hairdressers, but has a big clause about freedom of the press.

I think this is just one misguided state legislator pushing one of thousands of inane bills that don't have a chance in passing. Let me know when it gets out of committee, then there would be something to discuss.

 

[KingMerv00]

Stupid idea. Begs to be abused.

 

[MikeMangum]

Stupid idea. Begs to be abused.

I think abuse is the idea.

 

[dudalb]

Some idiot State Senator proposes a dumbass bill to make him look good to his "Liberal Media" hating Tea Party supporters.
Some major threat to the constitution.
Do you have any idea how many stupid bills are introduced into state legislatures by moronic representatives and Senators each year?
Fact is,sadly, some districts in each state can be almost guaranteed to elect crackpots and idiots.
In California we are almost guaranteed that at least one John Birch level Right Wing Wackjob will be elected from one of the ultra conservative districts,and one De Facto Marxist will be elected from one of the Ultra left districts.
As for the bill in question, it will die in commitee. And if in a fit of madness the Legislature was to pass it, it's a lead pipe cinch the courts would declare it an unconstituional attempt to restrict freedom of speech in about five minutes.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I love that WND is supportive of this. If any halfway competent licensing system were likely, they should be running away screaming.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There's a thought that jumped into my head as I was reading this, leading to a question that must be posed.

But first, I am completely in agreement with what appears to be the consensus here so far.

Freedom of the press is a right that is explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment, and under no circumstances can I support any government agency claiming the power to compel anyone to be licensed or otherwise subjected to any undue government regulation as a condition of exercising this right.

To make journalism subject to such licensing and government control certainly opens a big door for abuse; and there is little doubt that there are some segments of government that would love to have the power to impose such control over their public critics as such a measure would make possible.

Freedom of the press is a right affirmed in the Bill of Rights, and government needs to keep its hands off.


The right to keep and bear arms is also a right equally affirmed in the Constitution, and even more than freedom of the press, is a right that there are elements in the government that have a strong proven interest in suppressing.

So what do you all think of the idea that one should be subjected to licensing, permits, background checks, and other government-imposed burdens, as a condition of exercising one's Second Amendment rights? How many of you are consistent, as I am, in insisting that just as with freedom of the press, this is a right that government needs to keep its filthy hands off of?

 

[JWideman]

As a person who needs a license to exercise my constitutionally protected rights, I'm going to grab some popcorn and watch the show.

 

[johnny karate]

Considering that a gun is an instrument of lethality, I have no problem with the government requiring a license to own one.

 

[quixotecoyote]

There's a thought that jumped into my head as I was reading this, leading to a question that must be posed.

But first, I am completely in agreement with what appears to be the consensus here so far.

Freedom of the press is a right that is explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment, and under no circumstances can I support any government agency claiming the power to compel anyone to be licensed or otherwise subjected to any undue government regulation as a condition of exercising this right.

To make journalism subject to such licensing and government control certainly opens a big door for abuse; and there is little doubt that there are some segments of government that would love to have the power to impose such control over their public critics as such a measure would make possible.

Freedom of the press is a right affirmed in the Bill of Rights, and government needs to keep its hands off.


The right to keep and bear arms is also a right equally affirmed in the Constitution, and even more than freedom of the press, is a right that there are elements in the government that have a strong proven interest in suppressing.

So what do you all think of the idea that one should be subjected to licensing, permits, background checks, and other government-imposed burdens, as a condition of exercising one's Second Amendment rights? How many of you are consistent, as I am, in insisting that just as with freedom of the press, this is a right that government needs to keep its filthy hands off of?

Given that I'd be perfectly fine with the second amendment being repealed entirely, I'm shedding no tears about it being restricted, as it does not (or at least no longer) serves any vital function in society as the first does.

 

[R.Mackey]

To make journalism subject to such licensing and government control certainly opens a big door for abuse; and there is little doubt that there are some segments of government that would love to have the power to impose such control over their public critics as such a measure would make possible.

Freedom of the press is a right affirmed in the Bill of Rights, and government needs to keep its hands off.


The right to keep and bear arms is also a right equally affirmed in the Constitution, and even more than freedom of the press, is a right that there are elements in the government that have a strong proven interest in suppressing.

So what do you all think of the idea that one should be subjected to licensing, permits, background checks, and other government-imposed burdens, as a condition of exercising one's Second Amendment rights? How many of you are consistent, as I am, in insisting that just as with freedom of the press, this is a right that government needs to keep its filthy hands off of?

To begin, I agree that the idea floated by this Michigan state senator is a turkey. "People have the right to know reporters are credible and have good moral character," he says -- nonsense. Even if those terms could be defined objectively, people are allowed to make their own judgment.

Furthermore, what he's proposing is to create a new wing of government, specifically to license and scrutinize reporters, and to enforce this licensing by (presumably) suppressing those who do not meet their standards or pay their fee. Is this guy really a Tea Partier?? Hello, smaller government? I'm not a Tea Partier, but I think this idea is stupid even beyond the potential for abuse of basic civil rights.

Comparing it to gun ownership is tricky. There are regulations on speech, much as there are regulations on arms. The FCC, for instance. Laws on hate speech and libel. I don't think most people have a problem with these kinds of laws, and I don't either.

But it can go too far. Once upon a time government minders had way too much influence over movies in particular, also newspapers, textbooks. We still have the MPAA and RIAA -- largely voluntary now if influenced by government -- but it's gotten better over the years...

The bottom line for me is that every right -- every single one -- carries with it the potential for abuse. We have to choose not to abuse them. In general I am strongly opposed to laws that prevent us from abusing our rights by abrogating them. Punishment if we harm another is one thing, taking away the pointy things so we can't possibly poke ourselves because mommy knows best is something quite different.

 

[INRM]

King Merv 00,

Agreed


Quixotecoyote,

Very good point -- it is bizarre that they are supportive of this

 

[MikeMangum]

I love that WND is supportive of this. If any halfway competent licensing system were likely, they should be running away screaming.

Where did you get the idea that WND supports this? Certainly not from the article. They play it pretty darn straight and don't really let their opinion on the matter show at all until the very end when they link to an opinion piece (that celebrates citizen journalism) and then quote a paragraph from that editorial.

WND columnist Andrea Shea King has written about the new media and its impact.

"The shift from the way we traditionally got our news in the past to today's instant communication is revolutionary. Some compare it to the invention of the printing press. Whether it's social media sites like Twitter or news sites catered towards citizen journalism, the active voice of the eyewitness is now a significant part of any story taking place in the world," she reported.

What exactly leads you to the conclusion that WND supports this measure?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Where did you get the idea that WND supports this? Certainly not from the article. They play it pretty darn straight and don't really let their opinion on the matter show at all until the very end when they link to an opinion piece (that celebrates citizen journalism) and then quote a paragraph from that editorial.



What exactly leads you to the conclusion that WND supports this measure?

Actually, on re-reading it, I agree with you.

 

[KingMerv00]

As a person who needs a license to exercise my constitutionally protected rights, I'm going to grab some popcorn and watch the show.

Strict scrutiny judicial review is yields different results depending on the laws and rights in question.

(Technically the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated yet but is bound to happen any day now.)

 

[WildCat]

Last I checked the constitution doesn't say anything about mechanics, plumbers or hairdressers, but has a big clause about freedom of the press.

And "freedom of the press" does not apply just to reporters, or newspapers, but to anyone and everyone.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Considering that a gun is an instrument of lethality, I have no problem with the government requiring a license to own one.

A gun is an instrument of propelling a small projectile down a long metal tube to supersonic velocities.

That all you can think of doing with one is killing a person with it just shows us that you shouldn't be allowed to have one.

 

[uk_dave]

A car is just a means of transportation..... shouldn't you be licensed to drive one?

 

[johnny karate]

A gun is an instrument of propelling a small projectile down a long metal tube to supersonic velocities.

That all you can think of doing with one is killing a person with it just shows us that you shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Good point. I forgot about the many, varied uses for a gun.