My idea says nothing about silencing someone. But I think someone claiming to be a journalist should be accredited, and stories written by journalists should be duly labeled. Everyone else can say what they want. Where does that run afoul of the constitution?
Duly labeled by whom? And you think the government has the power to tell people who is and isn't allowed to call themselves a journalist?
No more so that a government telling other professionals whether they may hold themselves out as a professional.
There isn't a clause in the Constitution specifically protecting doctors or lawyers from restrictions on their speech. There is a clause for the press. A clause we put in the Constitution in part because of Britain's horrible history of restraining the press, including through imposing licensing schemes.
That would be something new to me, so please share (Britain’s licensing schemes). I’m curious how their how their scheme compares to my idea — which is to ensure journalists are accredited and self-governed by a journalism bar. I have ZERO restraints on what can be said in a publication. For example, the Gateways of the world (on both sides) can still publish their speech, but they can’t call their speech “journalism”. I’m struggling to see how this abridges free speech.
I never care about a negative rating. I like the discussion, but don’t care at all about thumbs by faceless posters on a message board.
I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't "journalism." Here's a link that discusses some of the background: Freedom of the Press in the eyes of the Founding Fathers Here's a link that also mentions some background and focuses on the legal aspects of it: Freedom of the press Personally, I can't stand the Florida Bar. The last thing I want to do is to subject the press to their own bar that will seek to punish people for expressing opinions that displease the powerful.
Will he reading hopefully soon (if I can clients off my back,lol). You may not like the Bar (and the Florida Bar is one of the most anti-competitive, restrictive body around), but one thing it does is give the public confidence that there is a means to ensure lawyers are governed with a high degree of professionalism. I think that’s important.
Very interesting reading. Thanks for sending. My idea is not anywhere close as radical as taxing the press through licensure, or restricting what can be said of the government (or anyone else). My idea simply makes journalism a profession (and most journalists consider themselves professional), and with that the need to abide by the tenets of that profession (like not making crap up and passing it off as reputable fact). But not all press needs to be journalists. Any member of the press can write opinions, stories, op-ed, and critique the government to their full heart’s content. But not all press will rise to the level of journalism, and the reader has a right to know what is journalistic and what is not. I think it’s become a necessary fabric given the unlimited information that flows through our phones every hour through unlimited sources of media. The world has changed, the means, method, manner and volume of information we receive has changed. With that, we need to have some form of filter to trust what we receive.
And in attempting to carry out that task, it too often tramples all over attorneys' free speech rights. I'm not interested in extending that to the press. As I said, the last thing I'm tasking the government with is deciding which reporters or media sources are engaging in "journalism" and can properly call themselves "journalists." The Florida Bar, in regulating a completely different profession, absolutely mangles free speech in pursuit of its purported goal of maintaining "professionalism." I'm also quite skeptical that the government could punish somebody for referring to themselves as a lawyer as long as that person made it clear they were not authorized to practice law and could not give legal advice. So I'm not sure how the government could punish people for calling themselves "journalists." If your scheme would require some sort of government certification or seal of approval on what is and isn't real "journalism," that is only going to create bigger speech problems.
Oooo, I should be flattered for the mention? I'll stack my relatively meager list of negative dispensation - 17 dislikes and 66 disagrees against your 3150 dislikes and 5504 disagrees any day. Take a look, you're the hands down winner! Congratulations!! Yours are found here ~ Orange_and_Bluke and mine are here ~ https://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/members/lacuna.5477/ Hope you have an udderly delightful Mother's Day celebration with your family O & B. We are planning a 3 generation combined family brunch celebration at a local winery.
