General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

18. You can argue with Move To Amend on that one

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #17)

Mon May 13, 2013, 07:45 PM

May 2013

Okay, but we are talking about ink on paper.

Not making movies or videos, correct?

(Ben Franklin, btw, set his own type and printed his own stuff)

Because by "that part of the Constitution" you don't mean "free speech" or "exercise of religion", you only mean "press", yes?

My understanding of "freedom of the press" meant the freedom to publish things without government censorship. There is nothing in this AP story that has anything to do with censorship of anything the AP published. But I'm guessing your definition of "freedom of the press", which is now a Constitutional right which should somehow apply to corporations, means something quite different than freedom from restraint of publication. What do phone records have to do with that?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why The Department Of Justice Is Going After The Associated Press� Records [View all] ProSense May 2013 OP

Should a warrant be needed to search something owned by a corporation? jberryhill May 2013 #1

Should a warrant be needed to tap press phone lines? Skip Intro May 2013 #2

Not according to Move To Amend jberryhill May 2013 #3

"freedom of the press" has to apply to a collection of people, not just an individual muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #12

One person can own and operate a press jberryhill May 2013 #13

Do you think "the press" was intended to be restricted to one person operations? muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #17

You can argue with Move To Amend on that one jberryhill May 2013 #18

I have no interest in 'Move To Amend' at all muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #21

I say "correct?" to avoid putting words into someone's mouth jberryhill May 2013 #24

Citizen's United is a topic for another thread muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #39

But you included making movies in your definition of "press" jberryhill May 2013 #45

That was an 'electioneering communication' muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #46

Are you suggesting that neither the 1st nor the 4th Amendments apply to AP? eom leveymg May 2013 #41

End Corporate Personhood! jberryhill May 2013 #44

This was not a tap, and ProSense May 2013 #4

Subpoena to telco reveals reporters phone records - who calls, who gets called. Called a "pen trap." leveymg May 2013 #42

The press is protected choie May 2013 #11

Okay, so.... jberryhill May 2013 #15

Should journalists be spied on in a Democracy? sabrina 1 May 2013 #23

Corporations are already legally treated as "US persons" for FISA purposes. eom leveymg May 2013 #40

Patriot Act says no stinkin' warrant is needed... Bandit May 2013 #5

Yes, I assumed "warrantless wiretapping" CJCRANE May 2013 #6

The Boston bombers call from wife is case in point.....an attorney on CNN said they will listen to Gin May 2013 #33

Oh I can't wait to see the hypocrisy of conservatives getting outraged about this. JaneyVee May 2013 #7

You Rebl May 2013 #22

If they had a subpoena or a warrant, this wouldn't be much of a story. winter is coming May 2013 #8

Yes it would. It'll be a bigger story if there were none, but geek tragedy May 2013 #9

Spying on mainstream media is still big news in the US leveymg May 2013 #43

Big Deal mick063 May 2013 #10

Good job, AP... Earth_First May 2013 #14

coming on the back of and mixed with the Benghazi story and the IRS story this is not good Douglas Carpenter May 2013 #16

Actually, ProSense May 2013 #20

You're dismissing the IRS story? Skip Intro May 2013 #25

Why ProSense May 2013 #26

Oh come on. Skip Intro May 2013 #27

Maybe ProSense May 2013 #28

If you think it isn't nothing, then what do you think it is? Skip Intro May 2013 #29

Oh ProSense May 2013 #30

So no effort to hamper or stifle political speech? Skip Intro May 2013 #31

No, ProSense May 2013 #32

Just to be clear: Skip Intro May 2013 #34

Maybe this will be ProSense May 2013 #35

Now you're wasting my time. Skip Intro May 2013 #36

On this point ProSense May 2013 #37

Evasive "answer" with mandatory link to something. Skip Intro May 2013 #38

You're saying that non-profit groups should be able to use tax deductible funds for political speech CreekDog May 2013 #47

Found this comment on ThinkProgress.. FWIW Cha May 2013 #19