[conservatism_IS_compassion]

A free press is essential to the American system of government. But a free press that lies through its teeth will only exacerbate, not solve, the critical problems facing America, from Social Security’s impending failure, to the problem of outlaw judges on the federal bench, among many, many others.

I have a problem with the grammar of that expression, "a free press." The number seems all wrong; we need multiple, independent presses - but we indeed seem to have multiple presses only in name, and in fact we have a single press which one is almost tempted to style an appropriate target of a RICO suit.

CBS can promote patent forgeries, and the rest of the Corrupt Organization which is the MSM declines to point out the obvious truth that CBS was perpetrating a fraud. The reason is that there is a conspiracy among the members of the MSM for the purpose of promoting the individual members of MSM by promoting the Corrupt MSM itself. It is all one enormous go-along-and-get-along scam.

It's nonsense, of course, for the press - protected as it is by the First Amendment - to be subject to a RICO suit because its members agree too much. Yet the truth is that broadcast journalism is not actually part of the press. Yes, the fact that it is not mentioned in the First Amendment is inevitably related to the fact that radio transmission was not invented in 1789 - but that is not the whole story.

The First Amendment is exclusively about freedom - but the truth is that broadcast journalism is more about censorship than it is about freedom of speech or press. Broadcasting as we know it could not exist without the censorship of the people which alone allows the radio transmissions of the government's favorites known as "FCC licensees" to be preferentially received over a wide area. Broadcasting is not merely radio transmission, but centralized radio transmission over public government airwaves.

[Congressman Billybob]

I used the phrase "free press" the same way as the Framers, and as the authors of the original Massachusetts Charter did. It meant then, and it means today, all of the means of communication, collectively.

As for the broadcast media (which today also includes the Internet), the FCC and other government agencies are moving toward the view that they are entitled to the same level of freedom and protection as the ink-on-paper press has enjoyed since 1789. I have long supported that effort, since all parts of the press are equally useful in helping Americans be informed about current events.

Using your words, we have very limited censorship of electronic media today. In my view, there should be none, as there is none of the print media.

John / Billybob