The Third Protection of the First Amendment

By Michael The Libertarian

Ah! My third favorite protection! The relevant part of the 1^st, in this case is a matter of a few words. Those few words are a dependent clause. I am going to give you the original text and then, “edit it” for brevity and clarity:

“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; ...”

Then, we have:

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ...”

Then:

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of … the press; ...”

You saw how I got there? Good! Let's go with that last one.

This seems like almost an absolute freedom to me. Obviously, there are limits, but essentially, the freedom covers quite a bit of ground. A funny thought just occurred to me: It “covers” the entire country!

Seriously, though, I've seen reporters following targets of stories. I've seen investigative reporters actually going under cover. Within reason, the press is afforded this latitude, because it is their charge to be our eyes and ears regarding, not only criminal activities by our fellow citizens, but abuses of the system and encroachment into our lives by the government.

The flip side of the coin is the fact that some people believe the press can go too far and still remain protected.

Reporters enjoy almost the same protection against revealing their sources (and what their sources may have admitted to) as do priests and ministers in regards to what they've been told in the confessional. Of course, there are limits, but journalists have successfully argued, through the years, that they have to enjoy a trust by sources in order to continue to do their job.

To bring it into today's fray, wouldn't it be nice if reporters who have leaked potentially classified information could be forced to give up their sources so we could plug those leaks? Of course it would, but it would also violate the first amendment (in a lot of cases. Actual national security would prevail in others).

As with anything else in life, the devil is in the details. We could argue the public finding out the content of Pres. Trump's phone call with the Australian P.M. Is a matter of national security, but that's up for debate, depending upon what details are actually leaked. That there were angry words and a “hang up” doesn't really qualify.

In contrast to that; if any of you remember Geraldo Rivera, drawing a diagram in the sand, live on television while embedded with a fighting unit in Iraq? I was at the head of the pack, calling for his scalp, after that. To me, that was an abuse of freedom of the press (because he wasn't prosecuted for it).

I think it's important to note, here this is one of the rights that I do “question” in that I am not sure freedom of the press meets my definition of a right.

I believe we are endowed with rights by our Creator. I don't think God gives a hoot about freedom of the press except where it is an out-cropping of freedom of speech.

I think this is an example of a group having rights only by virtue of that group being comprised of individuals.

Just so you don't get bored, let me add another wrinkle for you: congress already had abridged the freedom of the press!

“What?” I hear: “Let's go get the hidden rifles and ammunition! It's a cause for revolution!”

I don't know about that, but I'd be willing to bet that because of certain “abridgments”, we may not be getting the full story, all the time.

The FCC (the federal government) controls which outlets get to broadcast on television, radio, ham radio, and citizens' band radio. You are required to have a license to broadcast. I don't think it's any accident that the more powerful the signal, the more involved and expensive the licensing process becomes.

Not only does the FCC control who gets to broadcast, but they also control what can be broadcast. There are words on public airwaves that are “no-no”s. Cable used to be different (and I'm assuming the movie channels still are), but there are words you will not hear on broadcast outlets.

To be completely fair and honest, I have heard some rebroadcasts of pay-to-listen radio (SiriusXM, for the most part) and some of the language on there can get pretty raunchy.

More importantly than just a word, there are stories that get buried all the time. Harvey Weinstain and the New York Times 2004 ring a bell for anyone these days? Sean Hannity and Seth Rich? Not only should you look that one up, you should see if you can find any video of Sean talking about it on Youtube.

Freedom of the press, like any of our freedoms can be a bit of a double-edged sword unless we can remember (I wish I could remember to whom this quote is attributed, but I can't): “With great freedom comes great responsibility”

- Michael