Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

10. I agree they're constitutional, but that's because I think

Reply to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #8)

Fri Sep 20, 2013, 01:58 PM

Sep 2013

that defining a journalist is permissible where the legislation seeks to protect journalists and expand their rights, without taking away the rights of anyone.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are journalist shield laws unconstitutional? [View all] geek tragedy Sep 2013 OP

In the spirit of the first amendment should this shield exist? Glassunion Sep 2013 #1

There's the rub--if not everyone gets this right, no one but the government geek tragedy Sep 2013 #2

Journalist shield laws fall under the first amendment protections. Agnosticsherbet Sep 2013 #3

No they don't. Shield protections are created by statute, not by the constitution. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #4

Sheilds laws are constitutional because they fall under "Freedom of the Press." Agnosticsherbet Sep 2013 #8

I agree they're constitutional, but that's because I think geek tragedy Sep 2013 #10

I technically voted for 3. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #5

Complicated Question w/ No Easy Answer BKH70041 Sep 2013 #6

Weak. Marr Sep 2013 #7

So, in your view judges get to decide who's a journalist and who isn't? nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #9

No they can't, or actually they can. judgen May 2014 #11

Shield laws do not abridge free speech nor geek tragedy May 2014 #12