Chest-thumping + ignorance = fake legislating?

Indiana state Rep. Jim Lucas has to know that his bill proposing mandatory licenses for journalists isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

He doesn’t even need to read all of the way through the First Amendment to figure it out. About halfway through is enough.

“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…”

Ah, yes. The relevant freedom.

So, clearly a bill Lucas drafted calling for journalists to be fingerprinted and pay police $75 to get a lifetime journalism license is meaningless rhetoric.

He says he’s steamed about media coverage of his attempt to repeal an Indiana law that requires a permit to carry a handgun, according to a story by the Indianapolis Star.

“If you’re OK licensing my Second Amendment right, what’s wrong with licensing your First Amendment right?” he is quoted as asking.

Lucas can’t pick the constitutional amendments he will follow, ignoring others.

And he isn’t even original in his satire. South Carolina state Rep. Mike Pitts acted out an almost identical attention-seeking charade last year. He called his proposed “responsible journalism registry,” modeled after a concealed weapons permit law, an attempt to stimulate discussion on how the press covers Second Amendment issues, according to a Post and Courier story. Unregistered journalists would be fined.

Journalists could ignore these pranksters, but it’s bad to assume that silliness like this isn’t taken seriously somewhere, so it needs to be addressed. We need to speak up against real and faux attempts to impose arbitrary shackles on constitutionally protected news gathering.

It’s tempting to jab back by calling this #fakelegislating and to suggest that Lucas’s woeful ignorance of the First Amendment would cause him to fail a test for his legislator’s license.

It’s more important, though, to examine the grievance and dissect the motivation.

I encourage Lucas and Pitts to air specific complaints and criticism about journalism they’ve seen. It’s their right to challenge news coverage and present a case if they believe a story is wrong or inaccurate, or if they think a journalist was unethical or ignored context.

I’ll argue for their right to get answers to questions and responses to well-reasoned complaints. That type of accountability is enshrined in the SPJ Code of Ethics.

I have a hunch, though, that logic and debate don’t fit in with their plans for mischief.

Tags: , , , , , , ,


Defending the First Amendment and promoting open government are more crucial now than ever. Join SPJ's fight for the public’s right to know — either as an SPJ Supporter or a professional, student or retired journalist.


comments powered by Disqus

Connect

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn


© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ