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

Where is the word “journalist” or “journalism” in the constitution Lindsay?

can_con on June 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Journalism is not a closed trade despite what MSM journalists might think. We are all journalists.

NotCoach on June 5, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Oh great. The blogger’s favorite subject: bloggers.

BJ* on June 5, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Where is the word “journalist” or “journalism” in the constitution Lindsay?

can_con on June 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Good and plenty clause, along with all the other BS things they use to strip rights, freedom, and power from the individual.

Gatsu on June 5, 2013 at 2:07 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.”…

No Senator, what we should “ask ourselves” (every day
here in this “August Body” is How many Laws has this
Administration broken” you Fu*king Jackazz.

ToddPA on June 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Considering that the media has been covering up for the Obama regime and the only information we get is from bloggers, this doesn’t surprise me.

This man really needs to be removed from office. I hope the good people of SC agree. He’s done more damage than a democrat would have.

kim roy on June 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Funny thing, the term ‘press’ meant literally a printing press, as in self-publishing.

It’s a lot easier to pressure big journo’s than some independent blogger by threatening to withhold access or cut of sources of leaks.

Bloggers can’t be controlled and are thus a threat.

Neo on June 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Lindsey needs to take a little time to read the 1st Amendment. Slowly. Word by word. Over and over, to let it fully sink in to his pea sized brain.

If that would even do any good at all.

Idiot.

hawkeye54 on June 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Does Sen. Graham lack reading comprehension capabilities or is he just going senile?

I’ll go for the latter… early onset senility started a couple of decades ago with him… it hasn’t gotten any better since.

ajacksonian on June 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

NEVER FORGET; lindsey grahamnesty is nothing more than AMNESTY-JOHN McRINO’s ventriloquism dummy. When grahamnesty’s lips move – the words actually come out of AMNESTY-JOHN’s mouth.

TeaPartyNation on June 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Freedom of the Presstitues.

nobar on June 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

No Senator, what we should “ask ourselves” (every day
here in this “August Body” is How many Laws has this
Administration broken” you Fu*king Jackazz.

Not that Lindsay really cares.

hawkeye54 on June 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM

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. …This can’t go on.

Unfortunately it can, and most likely will, go on for decades at least. If not longer.

Fenris on June 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Where is the word “journalist” or “journalism” in the constitution Lindsay?

can_con on June 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Where’s the South Carolinia Republican willing to primary this guy?

Happy Nomad on June 5, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Does Sen. Graham lack reading comprehension capabilities or is he just going senile?

No. He’s just growing in his fondness and preference for absolute and unquestioned power of DC government…how dare anyone on a blog, or otherwise, criticize the superb job our Pols in DC are doing on our behalf. Why, it undermines and demoralizes our fine and upstanding representatives.

/s

hawkeye54 on June 5, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Where do we find these morons? You’d have to lack even the most basic understanding of the constitution and the american revolution to make a statement like that.

jhffmn on June 5, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Sure, I’ll agree with Graham.

HuffPo and every other liberal sites have no right of free speech.

The trolls here no longer have free speech, either.

At last! HA is troll-free!

/sarc

Liam on June 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM

What a punk tyrant fool. These people need to be dealt with.

tom daschle concerned on June 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM

ehh… they’re all racists anyway

/s

faraway on June 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I wonder: Shouldn’t senators have to walk to work? Through a gauntlet of average citizens? Armed with rotten tomatoes?

CurtZHP on June 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM

“There is full freedom of religion in China. Just ask the officially registered churches here and they will tell you.”

Statists will declare that they protect full freedom of the press and religion, but it is their domesticated version of it. This is a triple face-palm by Graham. I want the Senate majority in 2014, so I don’t usually call for primarying every established Republican, but South Carolina, can’t you primary this guy?

mwbri on June 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Fluke you, fool, in a very bad and painful way.

McCain needs to go to a creche and this fool needs to go and wipe his azz.

Schadenfreude on June 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Is there NO ONE WITH A SHOT who could primary this guy?

SC, this is on YOU!

BoxHead1 on June 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM

LOL fitting having McShame in the backround of the picture. I am losing a lot of cookies over these so called republicans. Mittens was the straw for me, and if Rubio is on the ticket next election, let along someone like McCain or Mittens, Sorry you all lost my vote. We are many that feel the same way I do. The party can go F itself.

watertown on June 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM

The liar in chief is on TV right now, shoveling the BS.

birdwatcher on June 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Is any blogger out there saying anything — do they deserve First Amendment protection?

Deserve ?
DESERVE ?
Is that what it is about now ?
Does someone ” deserve” the rights guaranteed by the Constitution ?
Yhis filthy cheap Clay Aiken knock-off makes me wanna puke.

burrata on June 5, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I, for one, love the ruminations of the political pigs in perpetuity, regarding what OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are.

With the exception of a few Conservatives, in Congress, the lot of them seek to lord over us, and will lord over us, for as long as we let them.

And we’re letting them.

The future of America is tyranny, the police state and oppression – because we’ll let that be our future.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Furthermore . . .

Only a tiny, tiny fraction (I mean tiny) of one percent of politically-oriented bloggers are even attempting to do what Jullian Assange did. There is no national security threat from bloggers to speak of in terms of leaking classifieds documents. Prosecute Assamge and Manning and leave us alone.

mwbri on June 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM

If someone hands you classified info and you print it for the world’s consumption, guess what? You are

So… Julian Assange?

Aquateen Hungerforce on June 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I have a lot of respect for South Carolinians, but wonder how they keep re-electing this schmuck. Wise up, my friends.

jclittlep on June 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM

So he is no different than the IRS.

pat on June 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM

I’m sorry, Sen. Graham.

I won’t refer to you as Sen. McCain’s dog any more.

Oh, wait…

kingsjester on June 5, 2013 at 2:21 PM

The First Amendment’s never been his strong suit.

Hell, INTELLIGENCE has never been his strong suit.

GarandFan on June 5, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Graham is scum, and liberals need to understand for once.

Right now, he hopes to stifle Conservatives. If he gets his way in full, he’ll crush our trolls, too.

Liam on June 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Graham is a sniffer…when did Congress become Overlords?

rgranger on June 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM

So… Julian Assange?

Aquateen Hungerforce on June 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Julian Assange is a US citizen?

Wikileaks is based in the US?

Try harder.

nobar on June 5, 2013 at 2:25 PM

libfree and HAL love this!

nonpartisan, too.

Liam on June 5, 2013 at 2:25 PM

And Lindsey wonders why people say he’s a RINO.

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer. The Founders were fully aware of the social media of the day, and they used it and protected it.

Many of our nation’s early leaders even wrote under pseudonym to directly influence public opinion on major issues. They’d be just fine with blogging.

From a technical aspect, what criteria would Graham use to determine if your journalism was worthy of protection? At the end of the day, any writing that acts to hold government accountable should be protected.

hawksruleva on June 5, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Don’t blame Lindsey Maroon, blame his constituents that keep putting him back in office.

paulsur on June 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Ya know what follows ‘licenced journalism’?

A Press Czar with the authority to impose tough fines with the force of law on thingies that the main parties to do not like. See the UK.

Resist We Much on June 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM

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.

Progressive Republicans have no actual policy differences from the Democrats. Graham and McCain and both pretty much the biggest progressive Republicans in the Senate, though Rubio is working hard to catch up to them.

I have a lot of respect for South Carolinians, but wonder how they keep re-electing this schmuck. Wise up, my friends.

jclittlep on June 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM

There’s no credible opposition to him. Any opponent would have to fight both the mainstream media AND the Republican Party as we saw with Romney’s primary opponents. It’s almost impossible to win under those circumstances, which is why we’re going to need a new party.

Doomberg on June 5, 2013 at 2:27 PM

nobar on June 5, 2013 at 2:25 PM

What?

AP thinks Assange is a journalist. At least that’s what I got from it. Waiting for him to tell me if I’m wrong.

Aquateen Hungerforce on June 5, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Don’t blame Lindsey Maroon, blame his constituents that keep putting him back in office.

paulsur on June 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I’m willing to give SC’s residents a little slack since there’s no one on the ballot that can effectively oppose Graham. Hard to cast a vote for “nobody” and staying home won’t cost Graham the election.

Doomberg on June 5, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Stop worrying about bloggers and get to work on appointing a special prosecutor.

Who’s the bigger threat to Americans, bloggers or Obama?

fogw on June 5, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Where do we find these morons?

jhffmn on June 5, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Please see Jim McDermott as a reference. Wins with 80% of the vote.

NOMOBO on June 5, 2013 at 2:30 PM

The price good men pay for indifference to politics it to be ruled by evil men.
-Plato

paulsur on June 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Does Greta blog ?
If she does, I’d like Ms Linsee to appear on her show and explain how bloggers are not ” journalists”, maybe he’ll bring Hoooaan the ” real journalist” with him for moral and vocal support.

burrata on June 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Lindsey is a stud. I can just imagine all the hard, sweet lovin’ he’s given the ladies in his life.

GhoulAid on June 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Wait, what? The First Amendment doesn’t only protect free speech for journalists, traditional or otherwise. Hey, SC, can’t you do something about this guy, like nominate someone else?

College Prof on June 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM

LINDSEY GRAHAM: “Freedom of speech is a great idea but we’re at war.”

Akzed on June 5, 2013 at 2:32 PM

GhoulAid on June 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Not sure his “hard, sweet lovin” has been for the ladies.

College Prof on June 5, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I challenge all the trolls here to weigh in.

libfree
HAL
non partisan.

You are all always contrarian to us. So, I call you all out.

Defend this Republican against we who oppose him.

Let’s play!

Liam on June 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM

The difference between the republican establishment and the democrat party is?

jukin3 on June 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Seriously South Carolina, why do you keep voting this guy back to the Senate?

Lance Murdock on June 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Maddow Lindsey is a stud. I can just imagine all the hard, sweet lovin’ he’s given the ladies in his life.

GhoulAid on June 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Your post made me laugh – I’m just havin’ some fun with it.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 5, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Lindsey is a stud liberal, a eunuch.
GhoulAid on June 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM

My take.

Liam on June 5, 2013 at 2:34 PM

SC state senator Lee Bright is thinking of running. Hes a possibility. He’s a fiscal conservative libertarian leaning Republican. Lindsey Graham has 3.5 million bucks in his war chest. I’m in Ga looking at who to support for saxby Chamblisses seat but I also plan to donate to a Lindsey Graham opponent if there is one that looks like a better choice. Lindsay makes my skin crawl

ldbgcoleman on June 5, 2013 at 2:35 PM

It appears that the USSC might have to make this clear to everyone. I am on the side of the bloggers, but does anyone on this site want to defend what Julian Asssange did in Wikileaks?

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 2:36 PM

C’mon, libfree!

Weigh in here!

HAL?

nonpartisan?

Any and every troll?

Liam on June 5, 2013 at 2:36 PM

The difference between the republican establishment and the democrat party is?

jukin3 on June 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Not one single, solitary, fu&@ing thing.

[I know that your question was rhetorical]

OhEssYouCowboys on June 5, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Question for Flimsy Lindsey: Should Politicians have full first amendment protections?

ghostwalker1 on June 5, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Wikileaks.

ProfessorMiao on June 5, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Lindsey is a stud. I can just imagine all the hard, sweet lovin’ he’s given the ladies in his life.

GhoulAid on June 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM

You mean boys…and in this case it is one boy…Lord John McCain of Arizona. The Lady Graham will be slightly insulted by claims that she is having lesbian affairs…

William Eaton on June 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM

The left wants to trample the 2nd amendment, the right now wants to limit the 1st. Great times we live in.

How Mr. “We are gonna tell the bigots to shut up” Graham gets re-elected I’ll never know

deuce on June 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Question for Flimsy Lindsey: Should Politicians have full first amendment protections?

ghostwalker1 on June 5, 2013 at 2:37 PM

I’m gonna have to go with no first amendment protections.

I’d love to shove a copy of the Constitution down their fu&@ing throats, just to muzzle ‘em.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM

The First Amendment mentions both speech and the press, therefore they are not synonymous and are both guaranteed.

Akzed on June 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM

libfree loves this idea, so that those who aren’t gay or black are disenfranchised.

Liam on June 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM

I am on the side of the bloggers, but does anyone on this site want to defend what Julian Asssange did in Wikileaks?

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Let’s ask Pancetta the leaker .

burrata on June 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM

How Mr. “We are gonna tell the bigots to shut up” Graham gets re-elected I’ll never know deuce on June 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM

This is a representative republic. Morons elect morons.

Akzed on June 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Ok, I knew I didn’t like this guy (Grahamnasty)…now I remember why…

norm1111 on June 5, 2013 at 2:42 PM

I am on the side of the bloggers, but does anyone on this site want to defend what Julian Asssange did in Wikileaks?

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Yes. The first amendment covers those who you don’t agree with.

/that’s the point

triple on June 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Unless it is written on papyrus stone tablets also) it is not accepted.

Lindsey, hate to break it to you, but those little amendment thingy’s, they are for all of us, not just who you pick and choose…they were written first for the citizens, and last for the leaders.

So I would say the 1st, may not apply to you…nor the 2nd, btw.

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

And here I thought Freedom of Speech was already protected by the constitution. Why do we need the shield law again?

antisocial on June 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

State Approved Official Media…It’s what’s for Dinner

workingclass artist on June 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

The liar in chief is on TV right now, shoveling the BS.

birdwatcher on June 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Exactly my point on regulating the LSM on anti trust..

Let anyone say what they will.

But, at a certain point, opinions and speech become a product like (drumroll) fertilizer and can be regulated.

LOL

IlikedAUH2O on June 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

And here I thought Freedom of Speech was already protected by the constitution. Why do we need the shield law again?

The shield law is about protecting journalists from divulging sources in court, not about censoring them from writing freely.

triple on June 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

….but, if you are talking about revealing legitimate state secrets that could endanger the lives and or liberty of our people, than of course you are not protected, no one is, including politicians.

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Graham can go f*ck himself; at this point, I don’t care what his opinion is on any topic, he’s a worthless squishy piece of donkey shit.

Midas on June 5, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Will a true conservative please primary Graham’s stupid ass. I am sick of his total idiocy. To him it’s the Constitution and Bill of Rights be damned in his quest for political power.

hamradio on June 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM

In rejecting the constant advice of the “let’s elect RINOs and go for the moderate vote” folks, by not voting for RINOs and their backstabbing friends, you at least know for sure that your enemy is on the other side and not behind you.

No one even need name the names of the unprincipled opportunists.

Don L on June 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM

….but, if you are talking about revealing legitimate state secrets that could endanger the lives and or liberty of our people, than of course you are not protected, no one is, including politicians.

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 2:46 PM

And who decides what a state secret is? Obama doesn’t want journalists to cover the IRS? Oops, state secret. It’s a bad precedent. You either have free speech and freedom of the press or you don’t, there is no happy medium,

triple on June 5, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Geographic Bookends

Since POTUS is familiar with the Pacific Rim, I wonder how he yearns for the Thai King’s law against critique. Then we have new Saudi anti terrorism law.

IlikedAUH2O on June 5, 2013 at 2:51 PM

When the government can selectively decide how the Bill of Rights is applicable we are on a slippery slope to slavery. Freedom of speech is just that, not something the government can weigh in on.

xmanvietnam on June 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I am on the side of the bloggers, but does anyone on this site want to defend what Julian Asssange did in Wikileaks?

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Assange isn’t the problem. He functioned just as a blogger does (albeit for nefarious purposes).

The problem was Bradley Manning, whom the military entrusted to safeguard classified information, who leaked it to Assange.

Bitter Clinger on June 5, 2013 at 2:56 PM

And who decides what a state secret is? Obama doesn’t want journalists to cover the IRS? Oops, state secret. It’s a bad precedent. You either have free speech and freedom of the press or you don’t, there is no happy medium,

triple on June 5, 2013 at 2:48 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.

I know, if we are going to launch an attack, let the journalist print the time and place…good grief. It’s only Wednesday, and look at the brilliance…equates the IRS scandal to “state secrets”.

Here is a word for you to learn…discernment…look it up.

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Lindsey is a stud. I can just imagine all the hard, sweet lovin’ he’s given the ladies in his life.

GhoulAid on June 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM

I hate you. It’s almost lunch on the west coast.

kim roy on June 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM

The trolls here no longer have free speech, either.

At last! HA is troll-free!

/sarc

Liam on June 5, 2013 at 2:14 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

I am on the side of the bloggers, but does anyone on this site want to defend what Julian Asssange did in Wikileaks? – SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Yes. The first amendment covers those who you don’t agree with.
/that’s the point – triple on June 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I agree with you. As much as I hate what Julian Assange did, even though he was a blogger, he should be protected under our first amendment. The Internet has become the press and we do have the right to free speech, as stated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, it might take a ruling from the USSC to make this clear to everyone. The ruling should be a 9 to 0 ruling.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Lindsey is one good reason why women should never be elected to office…she ruins all the other women running for office.

right2bright on June 5, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Where is the word “journalist” or “journalism” in the constitution Lindsay?

can_con on June 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

It’s not, so of course our betters in Congress would have to define what a journalist is. Seems reasonable to charge a small fee as well to license them, just so we know who is and who isn’t.

slickwillie2001 on June 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

You are of course correct, Graham. The founders only intended the priveleged few to have a right to free speech. (sarc)

Faramir on June 5, 2013 at 3:04 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

When I shut the door on a fly, or gnat, it’s usually gone within a minute, or two.

Deprive the filthy Commies of attention, and you deprive them of what they come here for.

I’m with you.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

I agree with you. As much as I hate what Julian Assange did, even though he was a blogger, he should be protected under our first amendment. The Internet has become the press and we do have the right to free speech, as stated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, it might take a ruling from the USSC to make this clear to everyone. The ruling should be a 9 to 0 ruling.

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:00 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

Assange isn’t the problem. He functioned just as a blogger does (albeit for nefarious purposes).

The problem was Bradley Manning, whom the military entrusted to safeguard classified information, who leaked it to Assange. – Bitter Clinger on June 5, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I agree. And, Manning should tried and if found guilty should be duly punished. What will be sticky is that it now appears that Leon Panetta leaked classified material for a movie, should he be punished in the same manner as Manning?

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:07 PM

The problem was Bradley Manning, whom the military entrusted to safeguard classified information, who leaked it to Assange.

Bitter Clinger on June 5, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Correct. Bradley Manning, willingly, agreed not to release classified information many times. Further, the First Amendment is limited within the military. For example, active duty military are proscribed from criticising their Commander in Chief.

Resist We Much on June 5, 2013 at 3:07 PM

For example, active duty military are proscribed from criticising their Commander in Chief.

Resist We Much on June 5, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Good thing – the land would have to be even more ashamed.

Schadenfreude on June 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Does Sen. Graham lack reading comprehension capabilities or is he just going senile?

I’ll go for the latter… early onset senility started a couple of decades ago with him… it hasn’t gotten any better since.

ajacksonian on June 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Can’t be senile..he’s only 57 years old. I thought he was same age as McCain…

Redford on June 5, 2013 at 3:15 PM

I agree. And, Manning should tried and if found guilty should be duly punished. What will be sticky is that it now appears that Leon Panetta leaked classified material for a movie, should he be punished in the same manner as Manning?

SC.Charlie on June 5, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Absolutely. As SecDef, he was well aware of what is classified info. Now, they have to prove he knew there were people in the audience that weren’t cleared for classified info. That might be a hang-up. Otherwise, he would be as culpable as Manning and should be punished accordingly.

Bitter Clinger on June 5, 2013 at 3:17 PM

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

What a jackoff. American citizens have full First Amendment protections.

Physics Geek on June 5, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2