Dan Popp
The press defends 1/5 of the First Amendment
FacebookTwitter
By Dan Popp
May 3, 2017

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. – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Members of the media are pretending to fear some sort of attack on the First Amendment. After all, President Trump has made some Very Pointed Statements about biased gatekeepers posing as unbiased journalists. (I have a contrarian view on whether reporters can be objective, but it's beside the point here.) Methinks they dost protest too much, considering that President Obama was openly hostile to Fox News, and Presidents in general tend to have adversarial relationships with the Fourth Estate.

Or maybe just the Republican ones.

But this is all faux outrage, a show for the sheeple. The press doesn't care about the First Amendment – it only cares about one of that Amendment's protections: the one that applies to them.

Where was the press when the government was establishing a national religion under FDR, and then LBJ? Were they helping their audience understand that government almsgiving is illegal? Were they being dragged off in handcuffs shouting, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion!" Maybe I'm watching the wrong news sources, but I don't think that actually happened. We have a state church, in violation of the First Amendment, and the press could not care less.

What about prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Did the national media get all huffy and puffy when prayer was banned from school, when bakers were forced to violate the dictates of their consciences, or when nuns were commanded to pay for contraception and abortion? Where were the self-knighted champions of the First Amendment then? As far as they and their audiences know, these are all perfectly valid uses of government power.

If the Obama (or Hillary) administration had classified the public reading of Leviticus as "hate speech" punishable by prison sentences, fines, and maybe some re-education, how many in the mainstream media would have "fought to the death for your right to say" unpopular things?

My guess is: zero.

What about the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances? The press actively undermines this right every time it uses the word "protest" to describe a violent riot in which people are hurt and property is destroyed. And when Tea Party groups were persecuted by the IRS, the press did not man the barricades of liberty and hoist the banner of the First Amendment, but instead called the peaceable protesters names.

So if my math is correct – and please double-check it, I want to public school – "the press" is only even pretending to be concerned about one out of the five, or 20% of the rights supposedly protected by the First Amendment.

My heroes.

© Dan Popp

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

 

Stephen Stone
HAPPY EASTER: A message to all who love our country and want to help save it

Stephen Stone
The most egregious lies Evan McMullin and the media have told about Sen. Mike Lee

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
FLASHBACK to 2020: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Cherie Zaslawsky
The tide has turned: Kamala sinking like a lead balloon; Trump taking off like a rocket!

Curtis Dahlgren
What's really at stake: freedom of the individual versus Collectivism

Frank Louis
Leaked passwords, burning ballot boxes, added apostrophes: What next? Oh yeah… that too.

Madeline Crabb
Election consequences – What if this one is the last?

Jerry Newcombe
What’s at stake in the current election?

Linda Goudsmit
CHAPTER 45: Every Conspiracy Begins with a Theory

Pete Riehm
This is why Alabama can't have nice things

Michael Bresciani
Does the Bible speak to our 2024 election?

Selwyn Duke
Why I, a staunch pro-lifer, staunchly support Trump (and why you should, too)

Tom DeWeese
What can we expect on election day from the forces of tyranny?

Linda Kimball
Spiritual warfare: Revolutionary politics of hatred, resentment and envy

Cliff Kincaid
Nazis, Fascists, and Communists
  More columns

Cartoons


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites