I usually agree with your posts.

From time to time. I can have trouble reconciling two beliefs I hold strongly too. In this case its a belief in the freedom of the press and the belief in loyalty to our government. They can often be at odds with each other especially in times of war.

This Arnett thing clearly provided a "bright line" division for virtually everyone concerned but I need to see where the line really is and where it should be. So far by debating it and acting as somewhat of a devils advocate I can accept the issue that his giving the interview itself and not necessarily what he said was and should have been seen as crossing the line.

I also see that repeating our own doubts and concerns could be considered giving aid and comfort but on that point I am finding difficulty because in fact its true, many do have these concerns and these conmcerns are widely reported in advance of his interview.

i have also learned that treason requires intent to do us harm and I don't think Arnett meant to cause any damage to us but that is merely my gut.

Finally, I am somewhat shocked that most freepers seem so ready to jump on the band wagon of choosing against freedom of the press in such a knee jerk way just because it conforms with our beliefs especially when the suppresion of news supporting our posistions on other things is something we encounter too often.

I would like to comment again on this subject regarding your post#351. The line is quite distinct. If the government refuses to allow the broadcast of Arnett's garbage, then and only then is it censorship. If the citizens (i.e. "customers") of the NBC networks rise up and demand an end to it, then it's an economic reality that his job be terminated. It's no different than if a football player sucks or if a tv news show finishes last in the ratings. The player will be cut or the tv show ended.
Arnett made another poor judgement as did the execs with NBC by gambling on his ability to just report instead of becoming part of the propaganda arm of an enemy nation. It is tantamount to treason but I'll leave that one to the lawyers. But the reality is if FR were shut down by the government, then it's censorship. If FR is shut down by protesters and lack of interest, then that is just an economic reality.
I object to censorship. I also object to alleged "unbiased" media types making propaganda films for our enemies. Arnett crossed the line and instead of paying the economic price of a consumer backlash, NBC took the correct action. This is very black and white with zero middle IMHO.

V

I have read a bunch of your posts and am compelled to respond. I practice First Amendment law in the US Supreme Court, and expect to be on the winning side with my 17th brief there, to be filed in the Campaign Finance "Reform" case. With that said....
The First Amendment "freedom of the press" has been correctly interpreted to apply to the forms of "press" unknown to the Framers, namely broadcast media. Therefore, under the Amendment the GOVERNMENT has no right to tell NBC, MSNBC, and National Geographic what they can or cannot broadcast or print. Are you with me so far?
The Amendment, however, does NOT say "freedom of employment for members of the press." NBC, etc., are NOT the government. They have every right to fire any of their employees at any time. And being private corporations, they have an obligation to their stockholders to fire someone (Arnett, for instance) if they conclude that they will lose market share, big time, because of something that employee has done or not done. Do you follow that?
So this NBC-Arnett thing has zip to do with "freedom of the press" and has everything to do with garden-variety free market capitalism. Got it now?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI, and FR, "The A-MAA-zing War Wizard"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."