First Amendment under assault

Posted by: steveegg on April 5, 2009 at 10:09 am

There have been a pair of disturbing developments over the last week regarding the First Amendment. First, Ken Klukowski of American Thinker reports that, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Obama Justice Department claimed a broad power to not only ban mentions of a candidate for federal office on TV or radio, but in films, books, and action figures. I believe the phrase is, “Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.”

Second, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to claim non-profit status in exchange for not endorsing candidates. They would still be allowed to create stories on political campaigns and editorialize on other political issues. I wonder if newspapers that are thinking about this have been paying attention to politics lately; not just the first item, but things like the 90% 93%-102% tax on bonuses at companies that took (or were forced to take) TARP money. I’ll likely return to that piece in the Washington Post for a more-thorough fisking as there is a wealth of material there.

Allow me to repost the First Amendment for the benefit of those that seem to have missed it in Civics 101, with a bit of emphasis added – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

4 Responses to “First Amendment under assault”

Comments

  1. Carlos says:

    Well, ya see, there ya go with all that seditious “First Amendment” stuff again, Steve…

  2. skylights says:

    Ben Cardin’s bill seems like a good idea. If a newspaper wants to not pay taxes, becoming a non-profit and abiding by the relevant laws would be the way to go. I don’t see any First Amendment issues there.

  3. steveegg says:

    Perhaps you could quote the part of the Constitution nullifying the First Amendment, or authorizing the use of the tax code as a bludgeon to shut up the critics of government, because I don’t see it.