The media’s attacks on the Second Amendment — and on the First
“It is not the corporate structure of media companies that makes them deserving of constitutional protection,” a November Times editorial asserted. “It is their function–the vital role that the press plays in American democracy–that sets them apart.” That function is a combination of information and advocacy. As we’ve seen in the gun debate, it’s sometimes very heavy on advocacy. The Daily Caller notes that journalists took to Twitter to “slam” the NRA during a presidential press conference.
Well, the National Rifle Association also has a corporate structure. Like Citizens United, its divisions that engage in politics are nonprofits under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Unlike the New York Times Co., the NRA does not seek to make a profit. But its structure, according to the Times, is irrelevant. What matters is its function.
The NRA’s function (and Citizens United’s) is a combination of information and advocacy–the same as a media corporation’s function. But before Citizens United, the NRA was legally forbidden from engaging in certain types of core political speech. The Times’s view is that itself and a few other government-approved corporations deserve a monopoly on free speech, and that the government deserves a monopoly on the possession of firearms…
It must be hard living in a country whose very constitution you loathe.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
the democratic politico-media complex is an entity of greater danger than Eisenhower’s reference to the military-industrial complex.
ted c on January 1, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Even harder to live in a country where our leading politicians and media figures can say they loathe the Constitution, and suffer no consequences for it at the ballot box or in the marketplace. The problem isn’t the New York Times. The problem is the New York Times’s readers. The problem isn’t that clown in the White House. The problem is the Americans who voted for that clown — twice.
Rational Thought on January 1, 2013 at 10:13 AM
If you think living in that country is hard, imagine being its president.
petefrt on January 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM
The Indonesian America-hater and the left have pretty much taken care of the Constitution (along with a big assist from Benedict Roberts, who should be a street person, at this point). And, I think you underestimate the hate of the Retard from Jakarta and his leftist lunatics … they don’t just hate the Constitution, they hate America and Americans. The only reason leftists and Indonesian Dog-Eaters even stay in America is because they hate us so much and want to make sure that we are destroyed. Otherwise, they would have moved out long ago, since just about every other country on Earth is closer to the leftist’s ideal than America, which is a major thorn in the side of leftist ideology. They stay here to destroy this nation and for no other reason. And they’ve just about done that job. All that’s left of the American Constitution is a bunch of words that can be twisted to mean anything that a demented leftist can think up. Benedict Roberts treats English as if it were a content-free syntax that is useful for nothing more than his perverted amusement and the dems and their Indonesian are even worse in that respect.
Lest anyone forget, this nation has at this point officially declared empathy to be a legitimate main criterion for a judge or judicial decision, in direct opposition to over three millenia of history and foundation of Western jurisprudence. That is how low this nation has been dragged – to the level of dog-eaters – and that is but one bit of the irreparable damage that has been done to us over the Indonesian’s illegitimate and retarded tenure.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM
A living document baby. Make it up as you go is the way of the future. Maybe what we need is the Constitutional law of the day. A web site were citizens and non-citizens can check daily to see what the law of the land is today.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 1, 2013 at 10:34 AM
I saw somewhere the other day video of Eric Holder saying that due process is not synonymous with judicial process.
In other words, as long as a few guys had a meeting or a conference call about taking your life, liberty, and/or property, that’s due process.
Akzed on January 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/holder_executive_branch_reviews_of_targeted_killings_count_as_due_process.php
Akzed on January 1, 2013 at 10:45 AM
That’s because due process is whatever they say it is. Just ask any dictator.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 1, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Sad to say, the president’s administration and his media enablers are not a new phenomenon, although the quality of both has diminished through the years.
I just this morning finished “Theodore Rex”, Edmund Morris’s epic-length discourse on Teddy’s presidency and the transition of Republican policy from “Old Guard” to “Reformers”.
Intellectually, TR vs OB is no contest; morally,ethically, and in personal character, ditto; however, in regard to political philosophy, there is not a whole lot of daylight between them.
Roosevelt made no secret of his disdain for legislative “inaction” and his preference for executive authority (which he wielded whenever he could get any legal cover for it), and felt the Supreme Court ought to move with the times in the “progressive” direction.
It is rather frightening how long we have been on the road to socialism and the diminishing of the Constitution, under Republicans as much as Democrats.
AesopFan on January 1, 2013 at 1:36 PM