Replies

"And you know, the notion that the press is somehow specially protected by the First Amendment...that they have a special status, is ridiculous . ."

Um, the first amendment says "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."

So they are singled out and that can be taken to mean that they do have a "special status."

Of course most of them are idiots and libtards but they are idiots and libtards with a special status because they are mentioned specifically in the first amendment.

The press is protected by 1A. The Constitution singles them out as a protected class. Think of societies in which the media is not free to say whatever they want. You don’t want to live there.

That said, nothing shields the press from the consequences of their own actions. Libel laws exist to help keep them honest, though the bar is high when plaintiff is a public figure. Citizens have every right to challenge the press or simply ignore them. We’re not hostages.

The President is right to call them out. He’s making no effort to silence anyone, however.

The Constitution has been interpreted by the courts to mean that political speech gets the highest possible protection under 1A.

This is going to be a very long slog. The media won’t change. What can be changed, however, is public perception of the media. That’s what we should be aiming for.

Yes, it mentions “the press.” It also mentions “religion.” The key here is “make no laws, prohibit, or abridge.....

The press is no more the 4th arm of government (as they have come to act) than would be “religion.” Indeed, the press has assumed that role - the role of Grand Inquisitor and Decider, somehow magically entitled to ask, think and speak for “the people.” [Remember when the USSC ruling about campaign financing and that corporations had the same rights as individuals regarding campaign contributions? That was an interpretation of 1A that put corporations on equal footing with individuals AND the press. So, are corporations now sacrosanct?

The truth is the press was not appointed this role; it was not elected to speak for the people in this role. Contrarily, our President Trump WAS elected and he was there in the press conference fulfilling that role speaking and acting on OUR behalf accordingly.

So, because Trump didn’t bend and kiss the Papal Ring of the Press, he STILL wasn’t enacting laws, suppressing, or abridging them. He was telling them the truth we’d all like to tell them if they’d ever listen to us (fat chance for that.)