Does anyone else see the irony in an ostensibly conservative politician filing legislation to create a state registry of journalists, to define what the requirements are to be a journalist before one can be hired, and to fine people and organizations who violate state journalistic regulations?
Would South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts (R) suggest a similar registry for churches? How about for people who wish to speak about public matters? Those are the other two protected groups in the First Amendment, who, alongside the press, are guaranteed freedom from government interference.
For that matter, how does Rep. Pitts feel about gun registries? Surely if we need the state tracking journalists, it should be tracking guns, too, right?
Look, I get the occasional irk at reporters and bloggers and folk asking embarrassing questions about a politician's campaign finances. But the Founding Fathers (you remember them, right, Rep. Pitts?) sort of settled that a few centuries back.
"To the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression."
— James Madison
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
— Thomas Jefferson
Dolt.
A South Carolina lawmaker wants to create registry for journalists. Um, no.
Yet another politician proposing a registry.
Similarly, not just anyone should be able to represent South Carolina in Congress. They need a law setting requirements to be eligible to run for office. I suggest starting with a working knowledge of science and history.