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"
My issue is that a mob mentality was brought to bear on a member of the press who from what I can tell accurately restated positions and reports as given by our own news in a televised interview and for that he was fired.
The 1st amendment protects us from the Gov't but it doesn't protect us from ourselves. My questions go to what our actions and expectations should be of our reporters in general. Where do we as a people draw the line for tolerance of differing points of view by the press ?