Replies

The First Amendment applies only to the government.

(dons flame retardant underwear)
Shocking but true, the First Amendment is overrated. Why?
Because the actual law of rights in America is Common Law. Recall that the Constitution as ratified in 1788 had no bill of rights. Why? Because the Constitution was not intended to affect any common law rights - and the nature of common law is that it wasn’t, isn’t, and never will be “enumerated” comprehensively in any one place.
Common Law is a bunch of court precedents, and court precedents grow organically.
Thus, the Federalists’ aversion to enumerating a bill of rights. But they had to agree to create one by amendment to the Constitution in order to get it ratified. The Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
basically reprises the Federalist argument that enumeration of all rights was a fool’s errand. What is most clear in the first and second amendments is true of the all eight enumerating rights - they weren’t there to break new ground, but to mollify apprehension about existing rights being modified. Those eight amendments “enumerate” the rights which tyrants had historically abused.
But those enumerated rights are clearly not designed to compromise any other right(s) by stealth, as the Antifederalists feared. Look at the Second Amendment. It speaks of “the” RKBA - but doesn’t define it. But “the” (existing) RKBA never included the right to commit assault with a gun. Let alone murder anyone.
Likewise the First Amendment speaks of “the” freedom of the press - but laws against pornography and libel limited freedom of the press at the time. Which is why Justice Brennan’s claim (in NY Times v. Sullivan that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
is fatuous. The First Amendment did not touch libel or pornography law. You have to actually confront Common Law to really know what the Bill of Rights actually means in any specific case. Certainly WRT 1A and 2A.

NY Times Company vs. Sullivan is unconstitutional.

There is a reason for the wording of the First Amendment. Kritocratic “precedent” has conspired to turn the US Constitution into a mirror of Soviet constitutions, just as the communists were actually planning to do way back in the middle of the 19^th century before the first communist constitution was ever written:

In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat …

— The Principles of Communism

In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law:

freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

— 1936 USSR constitution, Article 125

The 1936 USSR constitution was commissioned by Stalin, and he always bragged “We do not have freedom of speech for the bourgeoisie”, so all “freedom of speech” in his dictatorship is freedom of the speech he approved of.

As for common law, what respect have Democratic and RINO governors shown it?