You bet your ass, Dickie.
On the May 26 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Durbin told host Chris Wallace that he wasn’t sure if bloggers or “someone who is Tweeting” should be given protections under a media shield law.
“But here is the bottom line–the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s 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? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision in our Constitution that was written over 200 years ago.”
This is coming from a hack whose own party denies the same Constitutional rights for political opponents that they enjoy.
That damned pesky Constitution. We have entirely too much democracy in this country. The Constitution doesn’t matter because it’s like so 225 years ago.
The First Amendment is an exclusive right reserved by Dems, according to leftie New Hampshire legislator, Cynthia Chase. She actually wants to pass a law that “will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they (conservatives) think they will find here.” Her sentiment is shared by John (band-aid wound) Kerry, Paul Krugman, the hag from San Francisco, aka Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, and Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Obama’s “Communication Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd, thinks that references to freedom of speech is an “exaggeration”.
It’s incredible but not surprising how the unhinged moonbats in the Democratic party want to censor everyone but themselves.
Related articles
- Bloggers not protected by Constitution, Dick Durbin (buellreview.com)
- Lil Dick Durbin can go F himself, sideways (iowntheworld.com)
- Durbin wonders: Does First Amendment apply to bloggers, Twitter? (hotair.com)
- Sen. Dick Durbin on media shield: Should bloggers get ‘constitutional protection?’ (washingtontimes.com)