Lindsey Graham wonders: Should bloggers have full First Amendment protections?

posted at 2:01 pm on June 5, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via National Journal. He’s talking specifically about constitutional protections for revealing national-security information, not for garden-variety commentary, in case that makes you feel better. Why he’d draw a distinction even on those grounds, though, is beyond me. If you’re publishing, whether in the New York Times or on your website, you’re publishing. That’s what “freedom of the press” is aimed at. But then, this is the same guy who’s been known to grumble that in a perfect world we’d be able to regulate Koran-burning because it interferes with the mission of the U.S. military overseas. The First Amendment’s never been his strong suit.

Hinting at special treatment for the sort of credentialed media that most grassroots conservatives loathe seems like an odd way to get reelected in one of America’s reddest states.

“Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves,” said U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, addressing reporters from the corner of his second-floor office on Hampton and Huger streets. “Is any blogger out there saying anything — do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.”…

South Carolina’s Graham is the lead GOP sponsor of the bill. He’s working with Democratic U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and six other senators, three Democrats and three Republicans.Graham didn’t give specifics on the law, but said it would make it more difficult for the government to get a reporter’s notes and strike the right balance between freedom of the press and protecting national security interests…

“You can sit in your mother’s basement and chat away, I don’t care. But when you start talking about classified programs, that’s when it gets to be important,” he said during a Free Times interview. “So, if classified information is leaked out on a personal website or [by] some blogger, do they have the same First Amendments rights as somebody who gets paid [in] traditional journalism?”

“Who is a journalist?” isn’t the question we need to ask ourselves. “Who’s engaged in journalism?” is better. If someone hands you classified info and you print it for the world’s consumption, guess what? You are. That’s essentially what James Rosen did and virtually the entire establishment media, left and right, is outraged about Eric Holder’s attempt to treat him as a quasi-criminal to find out who was talking to him. Why should a blogger be treated differently? More from Andrew Ferguson on the media-shield law that Graham’s proposing:

More than 50 news organizations (Reuters, Gannett, the New York Times, and so on) signed a letter protesting the AP subpoenas, and of course journalism guilds like the Society of Professional Journalists are using the subpoenas to agitate on behalf of the Free Flow of Information Act—and for the same reason guilds always lobby the government for special privileges. The act will go a long way toward establishing a government-sanctioned journalistic class. There will be, on the one hand, approved reporters who are immune to certain kinds of governmental inquiry, and, on the other hand, everyone else, those less exalted citizens who, faced with the same governmental inquiry, would just have to suck it up. The act is a classic restraint of trade, protecting favored journalists from the pressure of competitors who lack the proper credential.

We don’t doubt there are admirable libertarian impulses behind the shield law, too, if it is intended to encourage the exposure of illicit uses of government power. But like so many libertarian impulses, admirable or otherwise, this one ends up extending rather than restraining the reach of the state’s sweaty and thick-fingered hand. Any shield law must turn on definitions. Who’s a journalist? Well, says one version of the act, a journalist is “a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism.” Leave aside for the moment why anyone in his right mind would go into journalism “for financial gain.” The next question is, And what is journalism? It is “the gathering, preparing, collecting” etc. etc. “or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.” These are definitions without practical meaning. They will be refined on the fly, applied willy-nilly, by either unelected judges or self-interested legislators.

I understand why Democrats would want special constitutional privileges for establishment media. I can’t fathom why a Republican would, although I also can’t fathom why a Republican would support the Gang of Eight bill or an opaque intervention in Syria and yet Graham supports those too. Treat this story as a companion to the story about the IRS “losing” its receipts, in fact: In both cases, you have government proposing different standards of behavior for itself, or for a favored special interest, and for the public at large. In the IRS’s case, it’s about accounting and accountability; in this case, it’s about the First Amendment itself. This can’t go on.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

In my view, the first amendment says that the government cannot stifle free speech OR the press. We all, every one of us, have to right to express ourselves. I would add, this is particularly true of political speech.

Bloggers are people. People who post comments are people. Free speech is for all, not just for journalists.

billrowe on June 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Just waiting for the day when I get up early in the morning and turn on the computer and get the Indian head test pattern.

tru2tx on June 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

SC, do America a favor and replace John McCain’s “brother” by another mother.

KCsecurity1976 on June 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Just because you have a right, doesn’t mean you have the right to abuse it…sorry, but rights don’t give you the right to destroy someone’s life.
It has to be judicious, but just because you have a 1st amendment right, it doesn’t give you justification to let’s say, out the time and day of an attack.

If you were a journalist, and knew that a Seal Team was going in at a specific time and place to capture a war criminal, you think you have the right to publish that, expose our men and get our men killed in a trap? You think that is what the 1st amendment was placed there for? And not for holding government accountable for it’s actions?

Discernment…right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 3:07 PM

You have a very good point. Assange did disclose classified information and did comprise some of our sources. But wasn’t that also done in the famous Pentagon Papers Case? Your argument about a Seal Team’s operational details being disclosed by the press or a blogger is interesting. I would say that they have the right to do it, but as you say “Discernment”.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Just waiting for the day when I get up early in the morning and turn on the computer and get the Indian head test pattern.

tru2tx on June 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

You made me laugh.

But, we’ll eventually have a Big Brother eyeball, and there will be no turning your computer off, goin’ on.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Bloggers are people. People who post comments are people. Free speech is for all, not just for journalists.

billrowe on June 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Freedom of expression, of the “press” does not mean freedom from responsibility.
It’s not a “get out of jail free” card,if they print something that directly results in someones death, limits our freedom, compromises our safety, than they are responsible.

Blowing the lid off the IRS is different from publishing launch codes…

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

the founding fathers could never have forseen things like internets and blogs, radio and television… telephones, cell phones, billboards, etc. etc.

These things are dangerous.

Free speech should be limited to newspapers, mail, soap boxes, and carrier pigeons.

Dr. Shatterhand on June 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

SC, do America a favor and replace John McCain’s “brother” by another mother. – KCsecurity1976 on June 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM

No, I think that posed a good question. I do know that a lot people on this board don’t like him for a variety of reasons, but until I have someone else to vote for who is better I will vote for Graham.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

You have a very good point. Assange did disclose classified information and did comprise some of our sources. But wasn’t that also done in the famous Pentagon Papers Case? Your argument about a Seal Team’s operational details being disclosed by the press or a blogger is interesting. I would say that they have the right to do it, but as you say “Discernment”.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM

If the published does not endanger or cause us security, etc. Than publish, but if they have the names and faces of undercover operational people, better not have that published.

They have the “right”, just like you have the right to drive (after being given a license), but not the right to speed and endanger people.

You have the right to bear arms, but not go around flashing a gun or threatening, or handing it over to someone who is unstable knowing it will be used for ill.

Your rights are balanced with the rights of others to live freely, to “insure domestic tranquility”.

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Free speech should be limited to newspapers, mail, soap boxes, and carrier pigeons.

Dr. Shatterhand on June 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Hence, the stopping of smoke signals…

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Freedom of expression, of the “press” does not mean freedom from responsibility.
It’s not a “get out of jail free” card,if they print something that directly results in someones death, limits our freedom, compromises our safety, than they are responsible.

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

Blowing the lid off the IRS is different from publishing launch codes…right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

“Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing does not generally include the word “falsely”, i.e., “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater”, which was the original wording used in Holmes’s opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false, as opposed to speech which is truthful but also dangerous.

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a “clear and present danger” to the government’s recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout “Fire!”; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting “Fire!” when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Let’s get shed of Graham. This is the man I want to see in there.

http://www.richard-cash-for-senate.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcnDaAdIWc

backwoods conservative on June 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM

What I posted on June 5, 2013 at 3:38PM came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM

“Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Schenck is no longer controlling law, per se. It’s ‘clear and present danger’ test was severely limited in Brandenburg v Ohio which lays out, with specificity, what speech can be censored relative to incitement of imminent lawless action. Under Schenck, the avocation of violence could be prohibited. Under Brandenburg, it cannot. Under Schenck, opposing the draft in WWI could be censored. Under Brandenburg, it cannot.

Resist We Much on June 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Never mind, SC Charlie. I didn’t read your last paragraph. :-)

Resist We Much on June 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM

I hate that “shouting fire” metaphor, it is over used.

What I am talking about is abuse of information…you have informaton that if released you get a Pulitzer prize, but people die.

So you release it because you have the right…but others have the right to live.

Just because you have a right, doesn’t mean you get to use it whenever you feel like it…others have rights that they want to exercise, like the right to live.

Panetta is a good example, he had every “right” and the position to release classified information, that later may have resulted in death of our men, just to appease a campaign.

He has the right, others have the right to question that “abuse” of right…and hold him accountable.

When you run down a pedestrian, you don’t stand in front of the judge and say “But I had the right to drive”.

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM

South Carolina – PLS find a replacement for Flimsy Graham!

TarheelBen on June 5, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Great minds think alike. Durbin and Gramnesty.

Herb on June 5, 2013 at 4:04 PM

I know that it is not against the law to be stupid, but it should be against the law to allow stupid politicians to run our country. The first and most important prerequisite for serving in our government should be to be able to read and understand the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Righrs. The liberal/progressive movement has been trying to turn the Constitution into a living document, that way they can adjust it to fit their means. Sad to say, the greatest majority of our politicians belong to this group and apathy of the voters keeps them in office

savage24 on June 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

The only reason we have trolls is because people feed them. If everyone ignored the trolls, they would be gone in 2-3 weeks.

bw222 on June 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the Hot Air community thrives on bashing these trolls.

TarheelBen on June 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM

I know that it is not against the law to be stupid, but it should be against the law to allow stupid politicians to run our country. The first and most important prerequisite for serving in our government should be to be able to read and understand the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Righrs. The liberal/progressive movement has been trying to turn the Constitution into a living document, that way they can adjust it to fit their means. Sad to say, the greatest majority of our politicians belong to this group and apathy of the voters keeps them in office – savage24 on June 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

So I guess that you are saying freedom of the speech and press does not extend to bloggers?/s

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM

South Carolina should be boycotted until they get rid of Graham. I’m sick of stupid people in stupid states electing stupid (and dangerous) people.

fatlibertarianinokc on June 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM

South Carolina should be boycotted until they get rid of Graham. I’m sick of stupid people in stupid states electing stupid (and dangerous) people. = fatlibertarianinokc on June 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM

We are being boycotted by the NAACP for having the Confederate Flag flying on the State House grounds.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Great minds think alike. Durbin and Gramnesty.

Herb on June 5, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Yep.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/27/durbin-wonders-does-first-amendment-apply-to-bloggers-twitter/

Abby Adams on June 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Lindsey Graham wonders: Should bloggers have full First Amendment protections?

Xblade wonders: Should SC voters boot Lizzie Graham’s sorry ass out of office in 2014?

Uh…yeah. Even better if they could figure out how to do it in 2013.

xblade on June 5, 2013 at 4:33 PM

but until I have someone else to vote for who is better I will vote for Graham.

SC.Charlie

The democrat would probably be better. The guy who ran against Jim DeMint is probably better.

xblade on June 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM

The only reason we have trolls is because people feed them. If everyone ignored the trolls, they would be gone in 2-3 weeks.

bw222 on June 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the Hot Air community thrives on bashing these trolls.

TarheelBen on June 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM

I’m always up for personcotting trolls but some of our posters go sideways if you try and suggest they modify their behavior.

slickwillie2001 on June 5, 2013 at 4:43 PM

but until I have someone else to vote for who is better I will vote for Graham.

SC.Charlie

The democrat would probably be better. The guy who ran against Jim DeMint is probably better.

xblade on June 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Yep. Would have to agree. At least with the democrat you know what you are getting and can deal with it.

It seems that Gramnesty only works with the voices in his head.

kim roy on June 5, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Lindsey Graham wonders: Should bloggers have full First Amendment protections? What dress should I wear to the ball?

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Sorry, but no one gets special treatment under the First Amendment. If it’s ok to publish classified info, then it’s OK, and it doesn’t matter who you are. If it’s not OK, then journalists should be no exception.

Was that clear enough? I hope it wasn’t confusing. Sometimes I can be a little dense with my writing……. /s

GWB on June 5, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the Hot Air community thrives on bashing these trolls.

TarheelBen on June 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM

It’s a two-way street. There’s obviously a void in someone’s life when they thrive on visiting opposing websites (or those who only show up for Sarah Palin threads).

bw222 on June 5, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Allah,
I do not believe the words journalist and/or media are listed anywhere in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nor specifically in the First Amendment.

Perhaps I’ve over looked them somewhere.

Tenwheeler on June 5, 2013 at 5:00 PM

We are being boycotted by the NAACP for having the Confederate Flag flying on the State House grounds.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

How’s that working for you? Not having a bunch of out-of-state liberals running around your state? Cleaner? Fresher air? Must be nice.

GWB on June 5, 2013 at 5:00 PM

They have the “right”, just like you have the right to drive (after being given a license), but not the right to speed and endanger people.

You have the right to bear arms, but not go around flashing a gun or threatening, or handing it over to someone who is unstable knowing it will be used for ill.

Your rights are balanced with the rights of others to live freely, to “insure domestic tranquility”.

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM

R2, I agree with most of your premise, but understand there is no “right” to drive. It is a priviledge granted by the state after certain conditions are met, and is conditioned upon the continued adherence to laws and principles.

The Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have no conditions. They are rights granted to us by our Creator.

Now, does one need to use good judgement in the exercise of these Rights? Absolutely.

Tenwheeler on June 5, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Yeah, good idea, let’s let everyone have our launch codes, let’s everyone know where we have our defensive systems, let’s let the world know where our ships are stationed…yeah, no state secrets.

It’s not a newspaper’s job to safeguard state secrets.

It’s the state’s.

Hence the term, state secrets.

When you have the media covering the ass of the state, what’s the difference between us and a state-run media?

triple on June 5, 2013 at 5:07 PM

It’s not a newspaper’s job to safeguard state secrets.

It’s the state’s.

Hence the term, state secrets.

When you have the media covering the ass of the state, what’s the difference between us and a state-run media?

triple on June 5, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I’m just curious, if someone gave you information that was illegal to actually possess (like an illegally recorded conversation, or child porn pictures someone gave you), do you still believe it is your ‘right’ to make them available to everyone & every thing?

Badger40 on June 5, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Except child porn (and arguably, porn) isn’t speech at all, so bad comparison. Publishing an illegally recorded conversation (that you didn’t record) is legal, it’s the act of recording that is itself illegal.

I’m sure the united states has a lot of secrets. It’s just not the press’ job to safeguard them.

Do you know that the us government can’t actually prevent a news organization from breaking a story? They just ask them to, and the media agrees to not go public because no one wants to get a guy killed. This happened with the OBL killing, for one.

But they absolutely have the right to.

triple on June 5, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Publishing an illegally recorded conversation (that you didn’t record) is legal, it’s the act of recording that is itself illegal.

triple on June 5, 2013 at 5:20 PM

So knowingly doing something, like buying a vehicle that you knew was stolen isn’t illegal?
I’m just curious where you draw the line as criminal action & ‘rights’.

Badger40 on June 5, 2013 at 5:22 PM

BTW triple, what do you consider ‘speech’ anyway?

Badger40 on June 5, 2013 at 5:23 PM

The democrat would probably be better. The guy who ran against Jim DeMint is probably better.

xblade on June 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM

You don’t have to vote for a Democrat. Richard Cash has volunteered to take Graham’s place.

http://www.richard-cash-for-senate.com/

I saw the strong campaign he ran here in the 3rd Congressional District in 2010. He came mighty close to winning it. I think he’s the man who can take Graham down.

backwoods conservative on June 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM

And so can you consider, triple, that yelling bomb in an airport is speech?

Badger40 on June 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM

These idiots are walking poster children for term limits. They apparently stay in office until their brains rot.

Karmashock on June 5, 2013 at 5:25 PM

RINO Delenda Est!

philw1776 on June 5, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Triple, if a foreign spy gave you classified stolen information, would you publish it?

Badger40 on June 5, 2013 at 5:28 PM

“Is any blogger Senator out there saying anything — do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.”…

FIFY

weaselyone on June 5, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Well triple I guess you’re gone or something.
I guess I have other things to do.
If I do not reply to any of your possible replies, it’s bcs I have to go.

Badger40 on June 5, 2013 at 5:31 PM

We are being boycotted by the NAACP for having the Confederate Flag flying on the State House grounds.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

How’s that working for you? Not having a bunch of out-of-state liberals running around your state? Cleaner? Fresher air? Must be nice.

GWB on June 5, 2013 at 5:00 PM

All states should be so ‘unfortunate’!

slickwillie2001 on June 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

What I find bizarre are the arguements that ‘the internet is different’ than what the founders ever considered.

When the founders were considering the press, all that made a person a member of the press, was paper and ink. They did not have littering laws to restrict the posting of notices on EVERY building and horse post! They knew that ANYONE could just go out and print up their opinions and distribute them to a large percentage of the people.

Graham is, in MANY ways, a PROGRESSIVE who wants to REWRITE the Constitution in his own image. Graham needs to be told that changes requires a constitutional ammendment.

Freddy on June 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM

No, I think that posed a good question. I do know that a lot people on this board don’t like him for a variety of reasons, but until I have someone else to vote for who is better I will vote for Graham.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

You just won’t be able to say so on a blog.

davidk on June 5, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Graham, you will first have to take my guns. You up for that?

davidk on June 5, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Blogs and new Media are a direct threat to their special club (D&R’s alike).. Look what they did to the Tea Party. If they shut down blogs and new media, it’s over.

Key West Reader on June 5, 2013 at 5:53 PM

But then, this is the same guy who’s been known to grumble that in a perfect world we’d be able to regulate Koran-burning because it interferes with the mission of the U.S. military overseas.

*head——>desk*
*head——>desk*
*head——>desk*
*head——>desk*
*head——>desk*
*head——>desk*
*head——>desk*

98ZJUSMC on June 5, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Jeeze. Why not just ask if anyone who opines on anything should have First Amendment freedom. What a fascist a-hole. Hey, Lins, I have bad news for you, the First Amendment was written to (in part) protect political speech. Might want to read it someday, ya know?

totherightofthem on June 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM

“Who is a journalist?” isn’t the question we need to ask ourselves. “Who’s engaged in journalism?” is better.

Or one could ask, “What constitutes ‘national security’?”

We are being boycotted by the NAACP for having the Confederate Flag flying on the State House grounds.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

And of course they don’t want to hear about the black Southerners who served in the Confederate Armies. Fanatical ideologues hate real history.

I see North Carolina caved in on this, and that was only a temporary flag, inside the Capitol to mark the 150th anniversary of the War.

These racists won’t be happy until every last Rebel flag is burned. However, I will say that with some of the idiots I’ve seen displaying it themselves, it’s no wonder the Confederate Flag makes many feel badly. These yahoos wouldn’t have been tolerated by decent Southern folk 150 years ago.

I seriously doubt that the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee were made up of drunk, dope-smoking, rude, irresponsible, lazy, tattooed, felons and tweakers living on public assistance.

From what I’ve read of them, they were God-fearing, hard-working, men who wanted to do well for themselves and their families, and to be viewed by posterity as dignified gentlemen who always did their duty as they saw fit.

Sorry, but many of these Southerners now are just hell-raising miscreants who have not earned the right to display that flag.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM

A Balrog of Morgoth wonders: Should Charleston poofters have full Senatorial privileges?

A Balrog of Morgoth on June 5, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Are there any provisions for kicking out such people?

Perhaps when the Democratic party Implodes, Conservatives can form a new party and the Leftists can find home in the Rino party.

Galt2009 on June 5, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Somebody’s upset that an anonymous blogger called him a RINO. Poor Grahmnesty!

blammm on June 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM

R2, I agree with most of your premise, but understand there is no “right” to drive. It is a priviledge granted by the state after certain conditions are met, and is conditioned upon the continued adherence to laws and principles.

The Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have no conditions. They are rights granted to us by our Creator.

Now, does one need to use good judgement in the exercise of these Rights? Absolutely.

Tenwheeler on June 5, 2013 at 5:07 PM

http://www.theconservativevoices.com/topic/57270-state-sued-for-%E2%80%9Cunconstitutionally%E2%80%9D-denying-illegal-alien-license/

nice huh?

dmacleo on June 5, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Allahpundit nailed it in his attack on Graham.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Obviously, first amendment protections should only be extended to registered and licensed journalists… licensed to the tune of $10K a year or so.

Oh, and no fair using someone else’s license to practice journalism… every individual reporting on a story needs to pony up the $10K. Failure to do so should result in a $25K fine and a year in jail.

There also needs to be an independent, bipartisan commission to issue (and revoke) licenses. And it goes without saying that the names and home addresses of registered journalists should be publically available online.

malclave on June 5, 2013 at 6:48 PM

“Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves,” said U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, addressing reporters from the corner of his second-floor office on Hampton and Huger streets. “Is any blogger out there saying anything — do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.”…

AMERICAN CITIZENS have the First Amendment right, azzhat.

Seriously, I can’t understand why SC voters, who elected Jim DeMint, keep re-electing Grahamnesty….

ladyingray on June 5, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Slippery slopes, people. Slippery slopes.

totherightofthem on June 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM

No one should be surprised that such things are being uttered by our “rulers.”

Akzed on June 5, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Yet, the majority of you will still vote repub.

Panther on June 5, 2013 at 7:27 PM

I haven’t read upthread, but…

“So, if classified information is leaked out on a personal website or [by] some blogger, do they have the same First Amendments rights as somebody who gets paid [in] traditional journalism?”

I’d say they have even more ‘rights’ than anyone paid — precisely because they aren’t paid.

Paging Panetta! (didja get that Lyns?)

jersey taxpayer on June 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Lindsey Graham, you jackass!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeyrp-V3Jvc

Pork-Chop on June 5, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Well triple I guess you’re gone or something.
I guess I have other things to do.
If I do not reply to any of your possible replies, it’s bcs I have to go.
 
Badger40 on June 5, 2013 at 5:31 PM

 
It’s his SOP.
 

So a dead thread, triple?
 
The old “post faith-based emotional tripe that I can’t defend past initial data and hope everyone else is as equally uninformed and easily swayed” approach, eh?
 
Reminds me of someone else here.
 
rogerb on February 5, 2013 at 6:14 AM
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/01/irs-cheapest-qualifying-family-health-insurance-plan-will-be-20k/comment-page-4/#comment-6694049

 

…if mass shootings weren’t happening what seems like every goddamn week.
 
triple on April 23, 2013 at 8:00 PM

 
When was the last one?
 
(Not counting the constant minority shootings/murders that you’re indifferent to, of course.)
 
rogerb on April 23, 2013 at 9:28 PM
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/23/boston-mayor-this-bombings-making-me-reconsider-my-position-on-the-death-penalty/comment-page-1/#comment-6917697

 
His floaties only work for so long in the deep end.

rogerb on June 5, 2013 at 10:07 PM

SABOTAGE

C’mon, it is hard to keep losing to Democrats.

After his excellent contribution to the struggle to keep conservatives and the GOP totally hated by as many constituent elements as possible, Juan asked his tag team buddy to come out with something to help out the Dems, who are in a popularity slide. This is a result of their demonstrated inability to be either good leaders or honest people.

Juan McLame asked Senator G to say this as a gambit to totally alienate the younger folks who dearly love the new mediums and saying wonderful astute or even stupid things theron.

IlikedAUH2O on June 5, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Graham’s friend McCain demonstrated in McCain/Feingold that he doesn’t think political speech necessarily deserves 1st amendment protection so you had to know that Graham would agree with such limits as well.

Nomas on June 5, 2013 at 11:29 PM

It’s his SOP.

Otherwise known as having a job..

triple on June 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM

billrowe on June 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Spot on.

Kenosha Kid on June 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM

I meant:

billrowe on June 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Spot on.

Kenosha Kid on June 6, 2013 at 2:51 AM

It’s his SOP.
 
rogerb on June 5, 2013 at 10:07 PM

 
Otherwise known as having a job..
 
triple on June 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM

 
And yet still no response to the posts.
 
Thanks. Nicely done.

rogerb on June 6, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Lindsey Graham sounds a lot like Dick Durbin on this issue. And Durbin is a certifiable leftist.

Dasher on June 6, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Speaking as one of Graham’s constituents, I am deeply disappointed and deeply troubled by his ignorant & extremely naieve comments/stance on this.

1) “If you have nothing to hide then you should not have anything to worry about’ is NOT ‘law’ & is nothing more than a Liberal justification of this massive over-reach and abuse of power by this administration.

2) Obama’s message for several years now – which has been proven to be a lie – has been ‘The War on Terror’ is over. In Obama’s mind & in his reality that may be the case as we have seen him drop the ‘war on Terror’ in favor of embracing his Islamic Extremist sympathizing stance and replacing it with the ‘War on the TEA Party, Conservatives, Jews Supporting Israel, & the Media”! This new war has been fully exposed, supported by the still-expanding IRS, Media Spying, & Verizon record seizing scandals are proving. If the war on terroris over there is no need to seize Verizon records…

Lindsey Grahm thinks it is ok, however, to wage war against the American people, to allow an out of control government that has already been expsoed as abusing the power of government to go after its enemies. THIS TIME, however, Graham attempts to quell our fears while Ignoring the Constituton/laws/our rights, & freedom by simply telling us that this new abuse of government power is ok because “You shouldn’t have anything to fear or object if you have nothing to hide.”

I am sure all the TEA Parties & other Conservative gorups in SC he ‘represents’ is going to LOVE this news. Speaking on their behalf, if Graham doesn’t ‘see the light’ very quickly he might as well start packing up his office, schedule a U-Haul pick-up, & get ready to move back to SC (where I am not sure if he would be welcome or not) because he doesn’t represent us on this issue. & if he is this naieve and trusting, considering all the scandals & betrayal of our trust by this federal government, he is too ignorant & naieve to represent the citizens of SC.

easyt65 on June 6, 2013 at 9:56 AM

RINO from South Carolina.

ultracon on June 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Sorry, but no one gets special treatment under the First Amendment. If it’s ok to publish classified info, then it’s OK, and it doesn’t matter who you are. If it’s not OK, then journalists should be no exception.

GWB on June 5, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Indeed.

AesopFan on June 6, 2013 at 10:13 PM

There should be no confusion: ALL citizens who publish or speak by ANY means are covered by the First Amendment.

Arguments to the contrary come from the same bvrain-dead mentality which concludes that the second amendment applies only to muskets and uniformed militia.

landlines on June 9, 2013 at 1:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 2