First Amendment

Lindsey Graham not sure if bloggers have First Amendment rights

Friday, June 14, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: bloggers, First Amendment, freedom of the press

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
BACK INTO THE CLOSET: Why U.S. reporters are not allowed to write about rainbow events in nations where being gay is still condemned
Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized
A family destroyed: Six-month-old dies after clinic injects baby with 13 vaccines at once without mother's informed consent
Biologist explains how marijuana causes tumor cells to commit suicide
INVESTIGATION: Three days before Dr. Bradstreet was found dead in a river, U.S. govt. agents raided his research facility to seize a breakthrough cancer treatment called GcMAF
BOMBSHELL: China and America already at war: Tianjin explosion carried out by Pentagon space weapon in retaliation for Yuan currency devaluation... Military helicopters now patrolling Beijing
Companies begin planting microchips under employees' skin
BAM! Chipotle goes 100% non-GMO; flatly rejecting the biotech industry and its toxic food ingredients
Chemotherapy kills cancer patients faster than no treatment at all
ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap, Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority
NJ cops bust teenagers shoveling snow without a permit
McDonald's in global profit free fall as people everywhere increasingly reject chemically-altered toxic fast food
March Against Monsanto explodes globally... World citizens stage massive protests across 38 countries, 428 cities... mainstream media pretends it never happened
Italian court rules mercury and aluminum in vaccines cause autism: US media continues total blackout of medical truth
SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision may have just legalized the concealed carry of loaded firearms across all 50 states, nullifying gun laws everywhere
Orthorexia Nervosa - New mental disorder aimed at people who insist on eating a clean diet
Vicious attack on Dr. Oz actually waged by biotech mafia; plot to destroy Oz launched after episode on glyphosate toxicity went viral
Nearly every mass shooting in the last 20 years shares one surprising thing? and it's not guns
(NaturalNews) The disdain many of our "Old Guard" elected leaders have for the very Constitution to which they have sworn an oath to observe and uphold is routinely on display these days, perhaps because We the People have, for far too long, neglected to hold them accountable for their miscreant deeds.

This dismissive attitude reared its ugly head once again recently when top Senate Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina suggested that Americans who blog aren't really reporting in the traditional sense, and as such may not be entitled to First Amendment protections.

In responding to a reporter's question about so-called "media shield legislation" under consideration in Congress following the disclosure that the Obama Justice Department improperly obtained telephone records of Associated Press and Fox News reporters and editors, Graham had this to say:

"'Who is a journalist' is a question we need to ask ourselves. Is any blogger out there saying anything - do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times."

'Are you planning to fire Holder?'

The "issues of our times?" Since when has the First Amendment been subject to congressional approval, senator? Then again, this whole thing begs the larger question: Why the need for a "media shield law" at all, given that the First Amendment already guarantees freedom of the press?

The National Journal had this to say on Graham's "riffing" on the Bill of Rights:

Graham's riffing on constitutional law exposes one of the age-old tensions between journalism as a product and journalism as an activity. What Graham really meant to ask was whether bloggers deserve the specific protections of the First Amendment that are granted to the press.

Actually, Graham should be asking questions directed at President Obama concerning his attorney general, Eric Holder, who has admitted that he personally signed off on the order permitting Justice Department and FBI officials to obtain the reporters' phone records as part of an investigation in the leaking of classified information. He might start with this one: "Mr. President, when are you planning to fire Mr. Holder?

The entity that should be the most upset by this sordid, blatant constitutional violation is the establishment press, for it was they who were targeted. In some respects the mainstream media's process of discovery is occurring; reporters are trying to get a bead on what parameters Graham - who has co-authored a media shield bill with Democrat counterpart Charles Schumer of New York - would use to actually define a journalist. From the Free Times:

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.

Asked how he'd determine whether someone is a journalist, Graham said it would likely take some revision of DOJ guidelines to make sure they're up to date with current technology and the new media landscape. The DOJ hasn't updated its guidelines about how it investigates reporters since the 1970s or '80s, Graham said.

Yes, well, we now know how the Justice Department investigates reporters...don't we?

Parsing the First Amendment

Lashing out at the press has been regular fodder for the Obama Administration, which is ironic given the media's fawning over the president since being elected to his first term. In 2009 - the last time Congress worked on a media shield law - Clint Helder, writing in the Columbia Law Review, said, "Are journalists best defined by the act of reporting (what's known as a functional definition), or by how they are employed (a status-based definition)?"

In a separate interview with the Free Times Helder elaborated:

"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. "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?"

A better question would be to ask if the First Amendment makes such a distinction. Personally, I don't believe it does.

Keep in mind a reporter (or a blogger) wouldn't have anything to report if someone hadn't given them the material. If that material was improperly released, that is where violations of the law occur, not at the (real or virtual) printing press.

Sources for this article include:

Follow real-time breaking news headlines on
Bloggers at
Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...


Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source:

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.