Ryan Sager of the NY Post has a great article today on the anti-gas-tax initiative and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's selective honoring of the US Constitution. TechCentralStation.com
First, Washington state's speech police came for the talk-radio hosts, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said nothing. In fact, the Evergreen State's largest [whoops, second largeset] daily newspaper said worse than nothing; it actively cheered on the enemies of the First Amendment.After describing the initiative campaign and John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur's role, he continues:
So, what might a principled newspaper do at this point, regardless of its stance on the gas tax? Well, of course, it would see the clear threat this judge's line of thinking poses to journalists everywhere. It would see that when we start to blur the line between campaign coverage and campaign contributions, we risk preventing the press from doing its job. And it would see that petty squabbles over state transportation spending are hardly something over which it's worth tossing one's First-Amendment-protected brethren to the wolves.
And, so, if that's what a principled newspaper might do, what would the Seattle P-I do? Well, of course, it would write a flippant editorial under the headline: "Jabber Over Journalism." And it would declare that while it's fine for "broadcast pundits, newspaper columnists and editorial pages" to "discuss issues and recommend action," the KVI hosts deserve to be harassed for "acting as political activists, not journalists."
Mac Safari users click the time stamp to continue.
Sager really tried. He called editorial page editor Mark Trahant. Of course Trahant had a ready reason why the first amendment protects him, but not people who disagree with him. Kirby and John got involved, but he didn't. Huh?
Trahant and other like him, however, need to realize that the First Amendment has no qualifiers. It doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press unless a citizen shall have a 'vested interest' in the topic." It says, "shall make no law." Shall. Make. No. Friggin'. Law.And finally
And who will be left to feel glee when the big hand of government inevitably falls on the P-I?There is a great photo of John and Kirby on the dollar bill, but it's not on the article, but on the home page. It's already been downsized. Take a look now. TechCentralStation.com. TCS is James Glassman's web site. They post 6 to 8 articles every day on technology, investing and government interference in commerce. Check it out.
Cross posted on my nameless blog
Posted by Ron Hebron at July 19, 2005 08:41 PM | Email ThisSupreme Court Justice Hugo Black
New York Times, 26 February 1971.
Does anybody read that anymore?
Posted by: Shaun on July 19, 2005 10:06 PMQueen Ludacris and her liberal cronies will get smacked up side the head with a 2 X 4 come this November in the form of I-900 and I-912. The P-I shows its worthlessness and yellow journalism as the #1 dead fishwrapper in this area.
Posted by: KS on July 19, 2005 10:35 PMHis own view was _literally_ "What I like is Constitutional, what I dislike is unconstitutional."
Posted by: Al on July 19, 2005 10:44 PMPLEASE SOMEONE IN THURSTON STEP UP AND RUN AGAINST HIM!!
Posted by: Andy on July 19, 2005 11:04 PMJohn and Kirby are commentators. They talk about many things, some more intensely than others. They bring in "official" guests to discuss all sides of issues and they even include the public - which sometimes is more than "journalists" do.
If they are classified as "entertainers" and if that should be the line on when to declare in kind donations, then I suppose all those entertainers that had big shows advocating against the election of Bush should also be expected (according to Wickham) to declare their time as in kind donations to Kerry or Gore's campaign.....
The first amendment doesn't make that distinction - "...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
The press are an addition to the freedom of speech - the people have it first and foremost. John and Kirby were exercising their right, along with others "...peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If John and Kirby did this a hundred years ago, they would have done it on a printing press and would have been standing on street corners getting the word out. It would not have been a first amendment violation - journalists do not have a higher claim to the first amendment than the person on the street, they're just arrogant enough to think so.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 19, 2005 11:25 PMThe first fact that can be derived is that we the people, as a group, created our government amongst ourselves to do those things that we, as individuals, cannot.
The second fact that can be derived is that the governing body derives all of their authority, power, and force from the consent of those they protect. That governing power is a privilege granted by the people and can be revoked or modified at any time.
The third fact that can be derived is that the whole purpose of our Washington State government is to "protect and maintain individual rights."
The fourth fact that can be derived is that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The U.S. Constitution declares that the federal government (Congress) has no authority to deprive anyone of their inherent right to express their opinions in whatever manner they choose. As this takes precedents over Washington State law, we must look to the U.S. Constitution for clarification. That is important because the U.S. Constitution is very clear on this subject. It says that Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. There are no qualifiers, no strings attached, but simply that this subject is hands-off to the federal government. By the declaration of federal constitutional supremacy in the Washington State Constitution, our state government should act accordingly.
The fifth fact that can be derived is that we have the right to go about our daily lives without intrusion or intervention from government. We call it liberty. We have stated that we shall not be subjected to the random intrusions of government without due process of law. We must be able to live our lives and to carry on in our private business without the interference of government. To be able to speak your mind without intervention from government is part of your liberty. How can government tell you that you cannot speak on a certain subject because it has passed laws restricting certain types of speech and subject matter when we have told government that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press?"
I looked up the sections of the Washington State Constitution so you don't have to:
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. (Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...)
SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.Posted by: Don Bangert on July 20, 2005 06:42 AM
The pendulum has swung. Government is now a predominant source of advertising dollars and of political power. So, today, major media protects and promotes government- The Seattle PI is a prime example, always counted on to promote the government line. Government now benefits by giving Mainstream Media (MSM) unfettered access, while it only invites problems to allow equal access to disgruntled public riff-raff. (before you know it they will be blogging, and then what?)
It has now become a pervasive myth that the "press" as referenced in the First Amendment exclusively refers to commercial MSM - rather than to each individual's right to publish thoughts, not just verbally, but also in print. Newspapers welcome this misconception, in fact, they are the source of it. Government's welcome it as a means of keeping the public nose out of what they are doing.