On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:56 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, but having a government entity out there somewhere that would judge who > is (and, more importantly, who *isn't*) qualified to be a journalist is de > facto censorship.
License or not, people are still free to write what they want, and people are still free to read it. All that changes is a title (or lack thereof). > The only problem with your analogy is there is no > "freedom to practice medicine" or "freedom to drive" specifically granted in > the Constitution, so the government is free to legislate doctors and drivers > as they see fit. No analogy is perfect. The amendment reads: "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." I have a friend who annoys me greatly because he will refuse to debate on any subject until every aspect has been defined. You can't ask him whether he believes in an afterlife, for instance, unless you have first defined life. In this case, his approach has some merit, at least inasmuch as there really isn't a definition for what it is to be a member of the press (just as there is no definition of "a well regulated militia"). Consequently, there is no law in effect to prevent Michigan defining a journalist a certain way. They do not seem to be attempting to deny anyone their freedom of speech. Anyone in Michigan could still say or write whatever they wanted. The establishment of journalistic credentials doesn't appear to be unconstitutional. If they refused to allow a member of the press to print something, that would be unconstitutional, but there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with a state attempting to define what a member of the press is. Another imperfect analogy would be your local weatherman. Having struggled through a meteorology course in college, I can tell you that I'd rather get my weather from an actual meteorologist than some guy pointing at a map while reading from a teleprompter. There is no law that prevents any idiot from predicting the weather, nor is there a law preventing me from asking any idiot to predict the weather, but I take comfort in getting my weather report from an expert in the field -- a genuine expert, not just someone named Aloha who received her certification in the mail. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
