<\/p>\n
Donna Anderson<\/strong> There\u2019s been a subtle shift in the language coming out of Washington lately. If you pay attention and listen closely you\u2019ll be fine. But it\u2019s like one of those subliminal messages they used in the old movies \u2014 the new language is best absorbed subconsciously, while you\u2019re thinking about something else. And the Feds are hoping that if they repeat it often enough you\u2019ll willingly roll over and forfeit your first amendment rights.<\/p>\n Of course, at the top of the list, we have Congress debating a new media shield law in response to the Justice Department\u2019s overreach in targeting AP reporters. On the surface it seems pretty cut-and-dried \u2014 a media shield law would protect journalists and their sources.<\/p>\n But anytime you implement a law you are essentially drawing a line in the sand, a line that can now, easily, be erased and moved until you\u2019re boxed into a tiny little corner.<\/p>\n The proposed law only protects journalists to a certain degree. Journalists can still be subpoenaed to turn over their sources if it\u2019s believed to affect national security matters, and yes, journalists can appeal to a federal judge. But let\u2019s face it, who appoints those federal judges? Certainly not the journalists.<\/p>\n And as we\u2019ve seen happen so many times in the past, the definition of \u201cnational security\u201d is whatever is most convenient for Obama and the DHS at the time.<\/p>\n While the media shield law in and of itself will limit the press\u2019 first amendment rights, it\u2019s the language coming out of Washington in support of the bill that\u2019s most frightening because it\u2019s influencing every American citizen, not just journalists.<\/p>\n On Sunday, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin appeared on Fox News Sunday. On live TV, in front of millions of average American viewers, he questioned the media shield law and whether it should apply to bloggers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mr. Durbin<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> said, (emphasis mine) \u201cHere is the bottom line \u2014 the media shield law, which I am prepared to support \u2026 still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it\u2019s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?<\/strong><\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for everyone, not just journalists, not just \u201cthe press\u201d \u2014 everyone:<\/p>\n \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\u201d<\/p>\n But with just a few well-placed words, Durbin would have you believe that the first amendment right of freedom of speech only applies to journalists, and journalists are defined as only those reporters who hold credentialed positions with one of the mainstream media news outlets.<\/p>\n But Senator Durbin isn\u2019t the only one trying to limit free speech. On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> (R-S.C.) also pushed the subliminal agenda. Speaking to reporters (who may or may not have been credentialed), Durbin had this to say:<\/p>\n \u201cWho is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves,\u201d he said. \u201cIs any blogger out there saying anything\u2013do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.\u201d<\/p>\n To be fair, when it was pointed out to both Senators that everyone enjoys the right to free speech here in America, they quickly jumped in to say that they didn\u2019t deny that right, they were merely questioning where to draw the line between what gets protected and what doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n In an even more blatant attempt to limit the First Amendment, Sen,. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), while questioning some of the conservative groups targeted by the IRS, suggested that it was their fault they\u2019d been targeted<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> because they applied for tax exempt status.<\/p>\n \u201cNone of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. If you didn\u2019t come in and ask for this tax break, you would have never had a question asked of you.\u201d<\/p>\n That statement, in itself, is scary enough, but it\u2019s what he said to Fox News\u2019 Megyn Kelly<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> in a follow-up interview that really hits the subliminal nail on the head. When Kelly pointed out that many conservative groups were kept waiting months or even years for approval for tax exempt status and wasn\u2019t that the same thing as being denied, McDermott said,<\/p>\n \u201cYes, but they were never denied their exemption. They could still operate\u2026They can still collect money, they can still put out advertisements, they can use their First Amendment rights<\/strong><\/em> \u2014 nobody at the IRS stopped them from doing that.\u201d (emphasis mine)<\/p>\n Again, McDermott is subliminally suggesting that certain groups or individuals are not entitled to their First Amendment right to freedom of speech, that it\u2019s a right bestowed by those in authority upon only those who qualify.<\/p>\n
\nInfowars.com
\nJune 6, 2013<\/p>\n