Piers Morgan Goes After Prince Harry For His Thought’s On America’s First Amendment

dailycaller.com ^ | 5/17/2021 | Lauryn Overhultz

[rktman]

TV personality Piers Morgan criticized Prince Harry’s thoughts on the first amendment in an op-ed published Monday in the Daily Mail.

“Like so much of the absurd Meghan-inspired psychobabble that spews out of [Harry’s] mouth, none of this makes any sense, and he clearly doesn’t understand what he’s saying either,” Morgan wrote.

Prince Harry expressed confusion over America’s first amendment during an appearance on Dax Shepard’s podcast “The Armchair Expert,” calling it “bonkers.”

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers,” Prince Harry said. “I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time. But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said.”

Morgan went on to point out Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s ongoing fight with the British media. The couple has previously won multiple lawsuits against different British media outlets.

[rktman]

Dumbassery writ large. Perhaps the show title is literal? Armchair ex-spurt, stick to armchairs. Thanks piers morgan. Every once in a while some intelligence shows through.

[Leaning Right]

> “Like so much of the absurd Meghan-inspired psychobabble that spews out of [Harry’s] mouth, none of this makes any sense, and he clearly doesn’t understand what he’s saying either,” Morgan wrote. <

Lots of folks here find fault with Piers Morgan, and rightly so. For one thing, he’s weak on private gun ownership.

But what he wrote there is pure gold.

[Campion]

Does Piers only like the odd-numbered Amendments? He certainly thinks #2 is “bonkers”.

[BobL]

I’m wondering about whether the First Amendment needs to go also, but likely from a different angle.

All that I see now is a media operating as an arm of a political party, but protected against outright lies and slander by the First Amendment.

So maybe keep the First Amendment, but it damn clear that the media has to be ACCOUNTABLE if they decide to destroy someone without EVIDENCE to back it up.

[stanne]

For his thoughts? Or for his thoughtless statement?

[hanamizu]

“You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said.”

---

I find that following news is much more informative by noting what is not reported by the MSM rather than by what they actually do report. I’m beginning to appreciate the skills of readers of Правда and Известия.

[SaxxonWoods]

First, he isn’t “Prince” Harry, he’s just Harry the nobody.

Second, Harry is an idiot who is shocked to find a country where people demand defend themselves.

[Sans-Culotte]

“It’s the same mindset that makes Meghan think she can complain to the bosses of TV networks when presenters like me refuse to believe her lies — and have them removed from their jobs if we don’t apologize for our impertinence.”

She doesn't "think she can", Piers; she did.

[GaryCrow]

I’m wondering about whether the First Amendment needs to go also, but likely from a different angle. All that I see now is a media operating as an arm of a political party, but protected against outright lies and slander by the First Amendment. So maybe keep the First Amendment, but it damn clear that the media has to be ACCOUNTABLE if they decide to destroy someone without EVIDENCE to back it up.

The first amendment doesn't need to go, it serves a critical purpose. The problem we have today is a monopoly on speech by the major media and suppression of conservative speech, which is not because of the first amendment but rather a violation of the first amendment.

The first amendment basically says that you can say anything you want but there is no guarantee that anyone has to listen to what you have to say. Today's "cancel culture" is hell bent on suppressing the free speech of anyone who isn't a leftist, and that's got to be stopped.

[exinnj]

Princes do not use the word “bonkers”

[bgill]

Well, Just Harry is sure running with that free speech part.

[bgill]

Perhaps clarifying it to freedom of the truthful press.

[VTenigma]

Agreed, the first amendment doesn’t need to go, the second amendment needs to be applied.

[myerson]

I said it before but I’ll say it again: Meghan won’t allow Harry to speak freely so he doesn’t believe anyone else should have the right to do so, either.

[slouper]

Didn’t this guy use to fly helicopters in the Army?

[monkeyshine]

It’s very simple, you third rate prince of a crumbled empire we defeated in two wars and then saved from defeat in two more wars. The First Amendment is why you and your wife left that wretched country and enables you to make a fortune in America.

[Rebelbase]

Megan has clipped his wings (nads too).

[mewzilla]

Jonathan Turley: Prince Harry and 'bonkers' First Amendment – take this threat to free speech seriously Harry and Meghan Markle are joining a growing anti-free speech movement in the US

[rktman]

I hear tell Zimbabwe is nice this time of year. Maybe they should give it a try and get away from this disgusting country.