Lawmaker wants to set up registry for Journalists

Good day all, in the “Hook, Line and Sinker” category, we have a story in the Washington Post regarding a South Carolina legislator who wants to set up a registry for journalists.

A simple reading of what the legislator intends shows that he was simply making a point regarding the Constitutional Rights of gun owners and how the media is so quick to suppress them. He had no intention of actually pushing a bill to register Journalists. However, quite a few journalist utterly failed to understand this. Here is the original story from the Post and Currier:

An Upstate lawmaker who tried to keep the Confederate battle flag flying and whose campaign spending habits were part of a Post and Courier examination of Statehouse money trails says it’s time to register journalists in the state. State Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, on Tuesday introduced a bill called the “South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry Law.”

And what would this bill do if it becomes law?

The bill would create requirements for people wanting to work as a journalist for a media outlet, and also before that outlet could hire anyone for a reporting position.

Hmm, this could be a bit of revenge against a paper that was investigating him. Or is it?

Pitts told The Post and Courier his bill is not a reaction to any news story featuring him and that he is “not a press hater.” Rather, it’s to stimulate discussion over how he sees Second Amendment rights being treated by the printed press and television news. He added that the bill is modeled directly after the “concealed weapons permitting law.”

“It strikes me as ironic that the first question is constitutionality from a press that has no problem demonizing firearms,” Pitts said. “With this statement I’m talking primarily about printed press and TV. The TV stations, the six o’clock news and the printed press has no qualms demonizing gun owners and gun ownership.”

Under the bill, the Secretary of State’s Office would be tasked with keeping a “responsible journalism registry” and creating the criteria with the help of a panel on what qualifies a person as a journalist — similar to doctors and lawyers, Pitts said.

Oh I’ve seen this sort of thing before, just never anyone putting it into the public record as a potential law.

Pitts said the criminal penalties mentioned in his bill for violations would be “minor fines” similar to those concealed weapons permit holders face. A journalist—defined as a person who in his professional capacity collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information for a media outlet, including an employee or an independent contractor—that is not registered would be fined $25 to $500, would be cited with a misdemeanor and could be imprisoned up to 30 days, based on the level of offense.

Obviously, this bill has no chance of becoming law, and Mr. Pitts knows this. What he did was simply take all the words that the Media likes to use to restrict the 2^nd Amendment rights of people and apply them to the 1^st Amendment. The Mostly Stupid Media took the bait and ran with it.

Bill Rogers, director of the S.C. Press Association, which represents 15 daily and 89 weekly newspapers in the state, called the bill “outrageous and unconstitutional.” “The Constitution doesn’t say anything about responsible journalism, it says free journalism,” Rogers said, adding that the SCPA encourages responsible journalism. “I don’t trust the government to say who’s qualified to be a journalist, and I’m surprised he does.”

Yep, he missed the point. All this pinhead saw was a deliberate, (and intentional), assault on the 1^st Amendment’s right of free speech, (Except on university campuses), and failed to make the connection with the very same media assault on the 2^nd Amendment. The response by the Mostly Stupid Media wasn’t limited to the local rag. Callum Borchers writing a column in the Washington Post saw the story and went absolutely nuts.

So many thoughts here:

Thoughts? You actually are capable of thinking? Who would have thought?

My visceral reaction isn’t printable but can be summarized thusly: This is a naked attack on the First Amendment — you know, the one that says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” I realize we’re talking about a state legislature here, not Congress, but we’re also talking about one of the nation’s founding principles.

And how is this any different from the Left-wing Media’s assault on the 2^nd Amendment? You know, the part that says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Oh, I know, you like to throw in the first part that says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” and totally misunderstanding what “Well regulated meant back then. It meant “In good working order.” It also meant that everyone was expected to have a gun. It didn’t apply to the National Guard, (and still doesn’t).

That aside, this kind of law would be completely unworkable. Look, there’s plenty of media garbage out there, but everyone has a different definition of what garbage is. Does anyone want a bunch of self-interested government officials setting the standard?

Why not? Moonbats like yourself are quick to impose government rules and regulations of questionable constitutionality on people who do things you don’t like, such as owning guns.

There’s also a practical problem: How on Earth would South Carolina’s secretary of state, charged with maintaining the registry, do its job here, anyway? Journalists can’t even define who is a journalist anymore, what with all the bloggers and tweeters posting the kind of information and opinion that used to come only from a highly institutionalized press. Good luck to Pitts when it comes to crafting a legal definition of journalism.

Hmm, how about people who’s primary source of income is Journalism?

Come to think of it, that’s really the great folly here. What Pitts is proposing isn’t just wrong; it simply can’t be done. There’s no stopping people from spreading the news in a digital society — certainly not with some outdated idea for a registry.

So, you also agree that creating a registry for guns is also outdated and unconstitutional? Of course you don’t. Being a good member of the Progressive Liberal Fascist Democrats, you have no problem taking away rights from people you don’t like.

When this story first came out a few days ago, I saw a number of responses on the Interwebtubes of things. One blog, called Tech Dirt sort of got what Mr. Pitts was trying to do, then took a high dive into shallow water. Progressive Liberals, (But I repeat myself), can’t seem to understand logical absurdity when it is aimed at them, as this bill, by Mr. Pitts on statements, obviously is.

We might quibble over minor details, but on the major items of the Constitution, it’s all or nothing. You accept all parts of it, even those you don’t like, or we just tear the whole thing up and appoint Obama or Cankles tyrant for life. If you don’t like something in the Constitution, well there is a way to change it. Just pass and ratify an Amendment. This business of passing laws requiring people to get permission to exercise your rights, any of them, is asinine, as is the bill Mr. Pitts proposed. Take it for what it was intended. A means to people to see just how stupid and unconstitutional gun control laws really are.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]