search
top

Why Shouldn’t Columnists Be Required to Carry Insurance?

David Frum, the media’s token conservative who’s not really a conservative, thinks that it’s just fine to require gun owners be insured. As someone in the media, I’m sure Frum is aware that there’s a possibility that columnists could be sued for libel or slander. Why not require that columnists carry insurance policies? After all, if someone wins a successful suit, it would be a shame for that person to not be able to recover the money because the columnists is uninsured. I support the First Amendment, but there are reasonable, common sense measures we can take to ensure that it is not abuse, and those engaging in speech are responsible.

9 Responses to “Why Shouldn’t Columnists Be Required to Carry Insurance?”

  1. RP says:

    Obviously nothing more than a tactic to harass gun owners and snuff out our culture. While it has no chance at the federal level, its no more ridiculous than 7 round mag limits, so I wouldn’t be too shocked to see some progressive state force it on their citizens. You just know CA is looking for a way to one-up NY and and CT.

    Does any insurance policy ever cover criminal acts committed by the policy holder?

    • JKB says:

      They’re going for an ownership liability even if the gun is forcibly taken from you, perhaps even by police or a court then lost. Because, really, are their torts due to lawful firearm usage going unpaid?

      Interesting they plan to exempt law enforcement, armed forces members and government employees. One presumes the government would be liable for loses due to their official weapons but why exempt them from liability for personal weapons? And would that be constitutional or would it indicate the infringing purpose of the law?

      But if they attach original owner liability to firearms, it won’t take to smart a lawyer to argue such liability for other items such as autos, toasters, etc. that are then used by someone else to cause an injury.

      This is just another example of how Democrats don’t understand “insurance” as a transfer of liability. See the recent description of health insurance by the HHS secretary.

  2. Miguel says:

    Let us remember the case of Michael Issikoff and his article about Guantanamo guards shoving Qur’ans down the toilet that turned out to be false because Mr. Issikoff did not check his source. Riots ensued in Pakistan at the news and about 30 people died.
    That makes Mr. Issifoff have a higher body count than Adam Lanza.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      CNN — buried all stories about the nature of Saddam’s rule in Iraq in order to “maintain access” to the country. How many Iraqis were murdered, raped, or tortured with their tacit approval?

  3. Asdf says:

    Let’s not forget the fact that most of these mass shootings are encouraged by constant media coverage. The “copycat” problem caused by the media is more to blame for mass shootings than the availability of guns. I’d say there is at least as much of a “compelling state interest” for regulating the media as there is for guns!

  4. Countertop says:

    Good thing no one pays any attention to David Frum.

  5. gattsuru says:

    Frum probably doesn’t have an issue with such a “speech insurance” requirement — he writes for big publishers that keep a lawyer on retainer, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that does personally, too. The problem is that he doesn’t know what it’s like to be the little guy regardless of topic.

  6. TS says:

    They really don’t want gun insurance, they want a gun tax. Insurance would have a benefit to the policy holder when it comes time to make a claim. In arguing with the antis on this issue, it turns out that they really don’t want that part.

  7. Zermoid says:

    Why not require that columnists carry insurance policies? After all, if someone wins a successful suit, it would be a shame for that person to not be able to recover the money because the columnists is uninsured. I support the First Amendment, but there are reasonable, common sense measures we can take to ensure that it is not abuse, and those engaging in speech are responsible.

    Why just columnists? Anyone who wants to speak in a public place should have to be licensed AND insured before they are allowed to utter a single word. Words can hurt and kill, and must be regulated, for the sake of the children.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Frum: Shooting Of His Mouth – And His Own Dick | Daily Pundit - [...] Why Shouldn’t Columnists Be Required to Carry Insurance? | Shall Not Be Questioned [...]
top