Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
First Amendment Clause-Trophobia
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Joe Cooper
May 24, 2013, 3:01:52 AM5/24/13
to
"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."
That's the full text of the First Amendment. But (with apologies to the
old Far Side comic), this is what many in the press, academia and
government would hear if you read it aloud: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, blah blah blah, or abridging the
freedom of the press, blah blah blah blah."
Don't get me wrong: The revelation that the Obama Justice Department has
gone to unprecedented lengths to hamper or punish journalists is real
news. DOJ trawlers dropped a gill net over the Associated Press in the
hope of landing a single fish.
James Rosen, a reporter for Fox News (where I am a contributor), is the
first journalist ever treated as a criminal under the Espionage Act.
Other reporters at Fox -- a news outlet the president has spent years
trying to delegitimize -- have been investigated by the DOJ as well.
The press can always be counted upon not just to speak up for itself, but
to lavish attention on itself. "We can't help that we're so
fascinating," seems to be their unspoken mantra.
And that's fine. What's not fine is the way so many in the press talk
about the First Amendment as if it's their trade's private license.
The problem is twofold. First, we all have a right to commit journalism
under the First Amendment, whether it's a New York Times reporter or some
kid with an iPhone shooting video of a cop abusing someone.
I understand that professional journalists are on the front lines of the
First Amendment's free press clause. But many elite outlets and
journalism schools foster a guild mentality that sees journalism as a
priestly caste deserving of special privileges. That's why editorial
boards love campaign finance restrictions: They don't like editorial
competition from outside their ranks. Such elitism never made sense, but
it's particularly idiotic at a moment when technology -- Twitter,
Facebook, Tumblr, Vine, etc. -- is democratizing political speech.
The second problem is that the First Amendment is about more than the
press. In public discussion, First Amendment "experts" and "watchdogs"
are really scholars and activists specializing in the little slice
dedicated to the press. The Newseum, a gaudy palace in the nation's
capital celebrating the news industry, ostentatiously reprints the entire
First Amendment on its facade. But if the curators of the Newseum are
much interested in the free exercise of religion or the rights of the
people peaceably to assemble, I've seen no evidence of it.
White House press secretary and former journalist Jay Carney repeatedly
insists that the president is a "strong defender" and "firm believer" in
the First Amendment.
Even if that were true when it comes to press freedoms -- and that's
highly debatable -- it's absurd when it comes to the rest of the First
Amendment, with the small exception of the "establishment of religion"
clause. Deeply secular, the press is ever watchful that the government
might force someone to listen to a Christian prayer.
But when it comes to the constitutional right to exercise your faith
freely, the press drops its love of the First Amendment like a bag of
dirt. The president's health-care plan requires religious institutions to
violate their core beliefs. To the extent that such concerns get coverage
at all, it's usually to lionize "reproductive rights" activists in their
battles against religious zealots.
The IRS scandal and the DOJ's assault on the press may be two separate
issues, but they are both about the First Amendment. The groups the IRS
discriminated against wanted to exert their First Amendment rights to
assemble, to petition government and to speak freely. Then-House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi dubbed angry voters at local town hall meetings "un-
American."
Some Americans wanted to exercise their religious conscience. (James
Madison, author of the First Amendment, said, "Conscience is the most
sacred of all property.") The IRS told one pro-life group in Iowa that it
had to promise -- on pain of perjury -- not to protest Planned
Parenthood. That is an outrageous assault on the First Amendment as
disgusting as anything aimed at the AP or Fox News.
By all means, journalists should be outraged by the president's attitude
toward the press. But if you're going to call yourself a defender of the
First Amendment, please defend the whole thing and not just the parts you
make a living from.
http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2013/05/24/first-amendment-
clausetrophobia-n1605033
--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/
Mr. Obama, much too pure and innocent to be told about mistakes in his
administration, was too busy bathing the feet of the poor and tending
to lepers to be told that his administration was engaged in an
Orwellian attack on free speech. (Ben Stein)
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."
That's the full text of the First Amendment. But (with apologies to the
old Far Side comic), this is what many in the press, academia and
government would hear if you read it aloud: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, blah blah blah, or abridging the
freedom of the press, blah blah blah blah."
Don't get me wrong: The revelation that the Obama Justice Department has
gone to unprecedented lengths to hamper or punish journalists is real
news. DOJ trawlers dropped a gill net over the Associated Press in the
hope of landing a single fish.
James Rosen, a reporter for Fox News (where I am a contributor), is the
first journalist ever treated as a criminal under the Espionage Act.
Other reporters at Fox -- a news outlet the president has spent years
trying to delegitimize -- have been investigated by the DOJ as well.
The press can always be counted upon not just to speak up for itself, but
to lavish attention on itself. "We can't help that we're so
fascinating," seems to be their unspoken mantra.
And that's fine. What's not fine is the way so many in the press talk
about the First Amendment as if it's their trade's private license.
The problem is twofold. First, we all have a right to commit journalism
under the First Amendment, whether it's a New York Times reporter or some
kid with an iPhone shooting video of a cop abusing someone.
I understand that professional journalists are on the front lines of the
First Amendment's free press clause. But many elite outlets and
journalism schools foster a guild mentality that sees journalism as a
priestly caste deserving of special privileges. That's why editorial
boards love campaign finance restrictions: They don't like editorial
competition from outside their ranks. Such elitism never made sense, but
it's particularly idiotic at a moment when technology -- Twitter,
Facebook, Tumblr, Vine, etc. -- is democratizing political speech.
The second problem is that the First Amendment is about more than the
press. In public discussion, First Amendment "experts" and "watchdogs"
are really scholars and activists specializing in the little slice
dedicated to the press. The Newseum, a gaudy palace in the nation's
capital celebrating the news industry, ostentatiously reprints the entire
First Amendment on its facade. But if the curators of the Newseum are
much interested in the free exercise of religion or the rights of the
people peaceably to assemble, I've seen no evidence of it.
White House press secretary and former journalist Jay Carney repeatedly
insists that the president is a "strong defender" and "firm believer" in
the First Amendment.
Even if that were true when it comes to press freedoms -- and that's
highly debatable -- it's absurd when it comes to the rest of the First
Amendment, with the small exception of the "establishment of religion"
clause. Deeply secular, the press is ever watchful that the government
might force someone to listen to a Christian prayer.
But when it comes to the constitutional right to exercise your faith
freely, the press drops its love of the First Amendment like a bag of
dirt. The president's health-care plan requires religious institutions to
violate their core beliefs. To the extent that such concerns get coverage
at all, it's usually to lionize "reproductive rights" activists in their
battles against religious zealots.
The IRS scandal and the DOJ's assault on the press may be two separate
issues, but they are both about the First Amendment. The groups the IRS
discriminated against wanted to exert their First Amendment rights to
assemble, to petition government and to speak freely. Then-House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi dubbed angry voters at local town hall meetings "un-
American."
Some Americans wanted to exercise their religious conscience. (James
Madison, author of the First Amendment, said, "Conscience is the most
sacred of all property.") The IRS told one pro-life group in Iowa that it
had to promise -- on pain of perjury -- not to protest Planned
Parenthood. That is an outrageous assault on the First Amendment as
disgusting as anything aimed at the AP or Fox News.
By all means, journalists should be outraged by the president's attitude
toward the press. But if you're going to call yourself a defender of the
First Amendment, please defend the whole thing and not just the parts you
make a living from.
http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2013/05/24/first-amendment-
clausetrophobia-n1605033
--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/
Mr. Obama, much too pure and innocent to be told about mistakes in his
administration, was too busy bathing the feet of the poor and tending
to lepers to be told that his administration was engaged in an
Orwellian attack on free speech. (Ben Stein)
Message has been deleted
Joe Cooper
May 24, 2013, 11:52:13 AM5/24/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-61BC4...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Nothing DoJ has done has interfered with that. What the DoJ has done
> is treated reporters and staff exactly like all other Americans who
> may have committed crimes or have evidence of others's crimes.
BS. No reporter has committed or been charged with any crime. This is pure
intimidation.
news:chine.bleu-61BC4...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Nothing DoJ has done has interfered with that. What the DoJ has done
> is treated reporters and staff exactly like all other Americans who
> may have committed crimes or have evidence of others's crimes.
BS. No reporter has committed or been charged with any crime. This is pure
intimidation.
Message has been deleted
Joe Cooper
May 24, 2013, 2:04:16 PM5/24/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-8F0C6...@news.eternal-september.org:
> He was investigated as a co-conspirator in espionage. Whether he had
> committed a crime is up to a trial to decide, if it came to that.
> Whether he will or anyone else was charged depends on the
> investigation.
Sorry, there will be no trial, as the DoJ long ago announced they have no
plans to file charges. Please do try to pay attention to reality.
0 new messages