Do Journalists need to be registered, maybe it's time?

There are people who insist that guns need to be controlled and they insist that forcing gun owners to register and be subject to government oversight.  They say this even though it is a Constitutional right for the people to keep and bear arms.

They insist that even Constitutional rights can be regulated.

Ok then.

There is now a discussion in the government about who is or isn't a "journalist".  The freedom of the press as well as the right to free speech are covered by the First Amendment.

It is a fact, with many documented incidents over time that so called "journalists" have directly and indirectly caused harm to other people with what they say, show and put into print.  Some people have e literally died, committed suicide or been killed because of what "journalists" have written or said.

"Journalists"' have incited violence, violated people's legal rights with slander and libel, outright lied and taken political "sides" of an issue.

This doesn't happen just once in a while, it happens regularly, almost daily, in the U.S.  Retractions are so common to see that people are no longer fazed by them any more.

No, these abuses of Free Speech and Free Press are dangerous and harmful.  Used inappropriately, people are being hurt.  They are losing their jobs, having careers ruined, families broken up and worse.  All due to inappropriate use of the First Amendment.

To help solve this problem, perhaps we should require that anyone who is to be considered a "journalist" must register with a new government agency within their home state (much like truck drivers, chemical applicators, gun owners, etc...), pass a test and be "approved" in order to be a licensed journalist.  The test will cover ethics, vocabulary, grammar, spelling, fact checking and more.

Of course, there is a fee associated with the test and it must be re-taken every 2 or 3 years to make sure the journalists in question are up to sped with all the new regulations related to journalism.

Yep, that should do it.

What?  You say that under no circumstances should the First Amendment be infringed in such a way?  It's a ridiculous idea you say?  We shouldn't judge all journalists by the misdeeds of a few?  Most journalists actually are good people and and they shouldn't e lumped into one big lump with those who abuse the First Amendment?

Why, you would be right to say that.  It is ridiculous.  Even though harm has most certainly come from people abusing their First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press, we shouldn't clamp it down in that way just because some people don't use it the way it is intended.

You say that there will always be a certain amount of risk that "The People" have to accept in order to maintain such rights.

Why yes, again, you are right.

And to think, the First Amendment doesn't even contain a clause which states
"shall not be infringed".

I know of an Constitutional Amendment that does though and some people want to regulate the hell out of it anyway.

You see people, it's not just about what harm might come from allowing such rights, it's about the principle of respecting those rights for all citizens.

There is inherent risk in allowing people freedoms of nearly all kinds because some may abuse those rights or use them in inappropriate ways.  the answer is not to remove or restrict those rights though.  The answer is educating people and responding to abuses on a case by case situation.

But that makes too much sense right?