• redit
  • youtube
  • google

Dianne Feinstein hates freedom

first amendment

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty simple, right? Most of us see the First Amendment as a wonderful thing. Dianne Feinstein sees it as a challenge.

Our founding fathers were pretty clear about this Freedom of Speech and Press thing. They wanted to make sure that the citizens were able to say what needed to be said, without any kind of punishment or repercussion from the government. Thomas Jefferson himself was elected in part, due to the opposition party’s adoption and support of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made criticism of the President or Congress a crime.

Dianne Feinstein however, doesn’t want all those freedoms to be given to just anybody. You see, recently, the Senate Judiciary committee passed some legislation that would protect help give protections to journalists. Initially though, the legislation didn’t talk about journalists, it gave protection to “covered persons”, an amendment was added that changed this to be a “covered journalist”. The amendment then defines a journalist as

an “employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information.” Or, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, “real reporters,” and not just anyone with a website. ~via Politico

She goes on to say, “I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there.” But that’s not how the Bill of Rights works. We all get those protections and freedoms, each and every one of us. If I want to start a website and call myself a journalist, I am free to do so.

That’s not the main purpose of this law though, limiting the rights of the average citizen is just a happy side effect that they can make use of later. The main purpose is to reduce the options that a whistleblower has available. Because if there is one thing that the government hates more than an average person exercising their rights, it’s one of those same average citizens trying to ruin their fun.

I would also like to add, that if they use the excuse that the founding fathers never would have even conceived of the internet when they wrote the first amendment, in much the same way that they never could have even conceived of an “assault weapon” when they wrote the second, I saw it coming. We’ve already got Gun Control, how long now until they start talking about Speech Control?