Protestantism

» pink101 - The Press

In response to The Press posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I think we can rest assured that the press, in 1787, was not considered to be the press corps as it is today. More to the point it was the printing press. I think a well thought out research on this idea would prove my point quite well.
.
We understand the press quite differently than did the founders. Maybe someone can do a doctoral on that one.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - The Press

In response to The Press posted by pink101:

Pink, there were independent newspapers in colonial America. That's a historical fact. The Boston paper, which I referenced in my link, was the first. There were others. Benjamin Fraklin's grandson became a leading publisher of such a paper during Washington's presidency. Pink, are you not familiar with the newspaper wars waged between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson during Washington's presidency?

You surely know about the Alien and Sedition Acts? The latter, passed by Congress and signed by President John Adams, was aimed at restricting NEWSPAPER criticism of President Adams and the US government during its quasi-war with France. It was a clear violation of the First Amendment, and the Jeffersonians said so. It was one of the reasons why Adams lost the 1800 race.

The Founding Fathers were WELL AWARE of the press!

Now, of course, the press has evolved over the years and has become more sophisticated and institutionalized. But, the Founders weren't clueless about it. They knew enough about it to know what they were saying in the First Amendment.

The most important thing is...

THE PRINCIPLE and MEANING of the First Amendment need NOT "change with the times" insofar as the news media is concerned. There was enough substance in the Founders' understanding and intent in 1788-89 (when the First Amendment was written and ratified) to apply to today's situation.

» Brian Tubbs - Bringing this Back Around

Is EVIL defined internally or externally?

» pink101 - The Press

In response to The Press posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The fact remains that the press, as it was defined in 1787, was a machine.
.
And, the press, as it is defined to day, is a corps of commentators, journalists, and pundits.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Book for you

In response to The Press posted by pink101:

Pink, I disagree. I don't think the Founders' understanding of the "press" was that narrow. But we will probably have to agree to disagree for now. Check this out...

http://www.amazon.com/Infamous-Scribbler...

» pink101 - Book for you

In response to Book for you posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I have too many books now. I have three books I haven't touched and three more I'm in the process of digensting.
.
But, if you want to buy it for me, I'll give you my mailing address.
.
So, I guess you see the press as a special itnerest group that has Constitutional protections above and beyond that of ordinary citizens. Is that correct? You don't think that "Free Press" clause applies to ordinary citizens?
.
It looks like you think the Press Corps has a special place in America juris prudence. I aint buying that. I think a lot of those people are just trash who have been bought and paid for by other special interest groups. I think we have a right to curtail them as they present a clear and present danger to our democracy. But, they have a lot of power.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Huh?

In response to Book for you posted by pink101:

So, I guess you see the press as a special itnerest group that has Constitutional protections above and beyond that of ordinary citizens. Is that correct?

You really do zoom off to extremes.....a lot. I don't recall saying or even thinking I was saying that. In the case of what we're talking about, the First Amendment protects the right of PEOPLE who wish to communicate information to society. Whether that information comes off a printing press or over the airwaves is all the same in terms of the PRINCIPLE enshrined in the amendment.

» paper_turtle - Bringing this Back Around

In response to Bringing this Back Around posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Brian asked:
Is EVIL defined internally or externally?
.
I believe evil is internal. We see external manifestations of evil (and may be able to discern the evil intentions of another), but the impetus comes from within:
.
He called the crowd and said to them, 'Listen to me and understand this: a man is not defiled by what goes into his mouth, but by what comes out of it.' . . . 'Whatever comes out of the mouth has its origins in the heart; and that is what defiles a man. Wicked thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, perjury, slander-these all proceed from the heart; and these are the things which defile a man. (Mt:15:10, 18-20; parallel, Mk 7:14-23)
.
A good man produces good from the store of good within himself; and an evil man from evil within produces evil. (Luke 6:45)
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Huh?

In response to Huh? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
So, then, why is it that member of the "press corps" express the idea they have special privileges when it comes to answering questions under oath--protecting their sources, etc.?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Shield law

In response to Huh? posted by pink101:

.
"press corps" express the idea they have special privileges when it comes to answering questions under oath--protecting their sources, etc.?
.
Apparently, law makers in 31 states (including Washington DC) thought some sort of 'shield law' was a good idea, and passed legislation. Some states offer source protection in civil cases only, not criminal.
.
Reporters subpoenaed to testify in federal cases have no special privilege. The Supreme Court determined that the press did not have a Constitutional right of protection from revealing confidential information in court. They'll go to jail - like Judith Miller (New York Times) did in the Valerie Plame case.

-- posted by Migisi