I've seen the enemy and it is us....................

[bonkers1919]

S.C. lawmaker proposes registry for journalists | The State

Words fail me................

 

[OakRiver]

You at least have to give the man credit for exposing the hypocrisy of some people who have no problem suggesting restrictions on one Constitutional right, but protesting those same restrictions on another.
"Congress 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" is pretty synonymous with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Kutnupe14]

What the Hell??? That due is smoking the good stuff.

 

[eldirector]

Well played, Rep. Pitts.

 

[pudly]

Seems he is trying to make a pro-2A point. Go Rep. Pitts!

 

[cobber]

Sounds reasonable and common-sense to me.


After all, the Constitution only envisioned a limited press, quill pens and small movable-type presses.


Also, journalists should be barred from school grounds, court rooms and other government offices, and bars. Especially bars.

 

[churchmouse]

Sounds reasonable and common-sense to me.


After all, the Constitution only envisioned a limited press, quill pens and small movable-type presses.

We have come so far yet seem to be going backwards.

 

[cobber]

We have come so far yet seem to be going backwards.

He is obviously promoting this tongue-in-cheek. But if 2d Amendment Rights are to be restricted, then how do the media figure the right they operate under should somehow be immune from "reasonable" and "common sense" regulation?

Let's see if anyone in the SC or national media is bright enough to figure this out. I'll be astonished if they do, frankly...

The proposed registry “is ridiculous and totally unconstitutional,” said Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association. The State newspaper is a member of the Press Association.The government cannot require journalists to register, Rogers said, citing the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which ensures freedom of the press.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politi...s/the-buzz/article55449025.html#storylink=cpy

Thanks Bill. Now would you care to take that position to its necessary and logical conclusion?

 

[churchmouse]

He is obviously promoting this tongue-in-cheek. But if 2d Amendment Rights are to be restricted, then how do the media figure the right they operate under should somehow be immune from "reasonable" and "common sense" regulation?

Let's see if anyone in the SC or national media is bright enough to figure this out. I'll be astonished if they do, frankly...



Thanks Bill. Now would you care to take that position to its necessary and logical conclusion?

I speak of society in general. I do see what this is about.

 

[pudly]

I don't see how anyone could object to this. It merely creates a list.

• It doesn't create a waiting period for publishing articles.
• It doesn't restrict people on the no-fly list from committing journalism.
• It doesn't limit the number of appearances on TV to only a specified number/month.
• It doesn't restrict them from covering schools, courts, or other other public facilities.
• It doesn't impose a tax on their pens and cameras.

No right is absolute. These are only common sense steps. It's a good start.

 

[Vigilant]

What the Hell??? That due is smoking the good stuff.

How so? Reasonable and common sense restrictions to some rights are ok aren't they?

 

[BogWalker]

We need a ban on offensive "assault words"!

 

[cobber]

We have come so far yet seem to be going backwards.

I speak of society in general. I do see what this is about.

The forces of "Progress" can call off the race to the bottom any time they want...

 

[SSGSAD]

I don't see how anyone could object to this. It merely creates a list.

• It doesn't create a waiting period for publishing articles.
• It doesn't restrict people on the no-fly list from committing journalism.
• It doesn't limit the number of appearances on TV to only a specified number/month.
• It doesn't restrict them from covering schools, courts, or other other public facilities.
• It doesn't impose a tax on their pens and cameras.

No right is absolute. These are only common sense steps. It's a good start.

I believe it is a good FIRST step .....

 

[Bfish]

Haha this thread is hilarious!

While I like how the dude exposes the hypocrisy of "it all" it's a bit much... I am enjoying the comments though fellas!

 

[OakRiver]

I think CSGV just broke my irony meter

 

[Mikey1911]

I think CSGV just broke my irony meter

Not enough yield. For that level of inability to recognize irony, you need to get up to at least Castle Romeo yield:

 

[dieselrealtor]

How about adding a tax stamp for each article they put on a webpage?

 

[IndyDave1776]

How about adding a tax stamp for each article they put on a webpage?

It works for me! That should slow the propaganda down a bit.

 

[dieselrealtor]

They could also submit the article to the proper authorities and wait, say, oh 3-6 months for approval prior to posting said article?