Constitution
Media
Responses: 9
4
4
0
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.
--
That part about the "press" meant disseminators of information. Speech should handle other modes of communication.
Interesting when ppl bang on about the establishment of religion clause the forget about the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part
--
That part about the "press" meant disseminators of information. Speech should handle other modes of communication.
Interesting when ppl bang on about the establishment of religion clause the forget about the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
NO the 1st was put into place for assholes like me, I can speak my mind without having to worry about a knock at the door in the middle of the knight.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
.... infringing on the freedom of the press,
The 1st Amendment does specify the Press. But it does not state that one cannot criticize the Press.
The 1st Amendment does specify the Press. But it does not state that one cannot criticize the Press.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
PO1 Todd B. - Does the Constitution state free speech or free Press?? The Press is the only industry mentioned in the Constitution. Free speech is granted to an individual while a free press is granted to an industry. You can argue all day long as to what is and what's not the Press.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Todd B.
LTC (Join to see) -
"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."
Remember, back then the word 'press' referred more to the relatively new printing press of the time, handbills, papers and of course, a fledgling paper press that was not yet any kind of mainstream thing like we see today.
Like I said, the word 'press' in the Constitution is not meant literal. It is meant to convey that just as in spoken speech, printed or written speech is also covered.
Had it said Printed Newspaper or called the new media by actual name, you might have a case. But if you look at historical precendent and how Constitutional law is interpreted, it clearly becomes evident that CNN, MSNBC and other major media outlets are delusional when they make the statement, as they have been, that "We are the fourth branch of government because the Constitution says we are."
THAT is bullshit, completely and totally. If it were true, they would have a table at the seat of government, which they do not. They would have actual dictated powers just as the other three branches do. They don't and they won't.
"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."
Remember, back then the word 'press' referred more to the relatively new printing press of the time, handbills, papers and of course, a fledgling paper press that was not yet any kind of mainstream thing like we see today.
Like I said, the word 'press' in the Constitution is not meant literal. It is meant to convey that just as in spoken speech, printed or written speech is also covered.
Had it said Printed Newspaper or called the new media by actual name, you might have a case. But if you look at historical precendent and how Constitutional law is interpreted, it clearly becomes evident that CNN, MSNBC and other major media outlets are delusional when they make the statement, as they have been, that "We are the fourth branch of government because the Constitution says we are."
THAT is bullshit, completely and totally. If it were true, they would have a table at the seat of government, which they do not. They would have actual dictated powers just as the other three branches do. They don't and they won't.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Not entirely. It's purpose was as SFC Shirley Whitfield mentioned was to allow the press to make comment and even question the motives and actions of the government without reprisal or control by the government. Something we saw a lot of as British citizens back a couple a hundred years ago. Something you also see in recent times, when dictators and authoritarians control the press through limited access, threat, or discreditation. There have been attempts before to quiet those who voice opinions other than of those currently in Power in the U.S.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Amendment I (Speech and Press)
Benjamin Franklin, An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz., The Court of the Press
12 Sept. 1789 Writings 10:36--40
Power of this Court.
It may receive and promulgate accusations of all kinds, against all persons and characters among the citizens of the State, and even against all inferior courts; and may judge, sentence, and condemn to infamy, not only private individuals, but public bodies, &c., with or without inquiry or hearing, at the court's discretion.
In whose Favour and for whose Emolument this Court is established.
In favour of about one citizen in five hundred, who, by education or practice in scribbling, has acquired a tolerable style as to grammar and construction, so as to bear printing; or who is possessed of a press and a few types. This five hundredth part of the citizens have the privilege of accusing and abusing the other four hundred and ninety-nine parts at their pleasure; or they may hire out their pens and press to others for that purpose.
Practice of the Court.
It is not governed by any of the rules of common courts of law. The accused is allowed no grand jury to judge of the truth of the accusation before it is publicly made, nor is the Name of the Accuser made known to him, nor has he an Opportunity of confronting the Witnesses against him; for they are kept in the dark, as in the Spanish Court of Inquisition. Nor is there any petty Jury of his Peers, sworn to try the Truth of the Charges. The Proceedings are also sometimes so rapid, that an honest, good Citizen may find himself suddenly and unexpectedly accus'd, and in the same Morning judg'd and condemn'd, and sentence pronounc'd against him, that he is a Rogue and a Villain. Yet, if an officer of this court receives the slightest check for misconduct in this his office, he claims immediately the rights of a free citizen by the constitution, and demands to know his accuser, to confront the witnesses, and to have a fair trial by a jury of his peers.
The Foundation of its Authority.
It is said to be founded on an Article of the Constitution of the State, which establishes the Liberty of the Press; a Liberty which every Pennsylvanian would fight and die for; tho' few of us, I believe, have distinct Ideas of its Nature and Extent. It seems indeed somewhat like the Liberty of the Press that Felons have, by the Common Law of England, before Conviction, that is, to be press'd to death or hanged. If by the Liberty of the Press were understood merely the Liberty of discussing the Propriety of Public Measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the Liberty of affronting, calumniating, and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my Share of it when our Legislators shall please so to alter the Law, and shall cheerfully consent to exchange my Liberty of Abusing others for the Privilege of not being abus'd myself.
By Whom this Court is commissioned or constituted.
It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the Abilities, Integrity, Knowledge, &c. of the Persons to be appointed to this great Trust, of deciding upon the Characters and good Fame of the Citizens; for this Court is above that Council, and may accuse, judge, and condemn it, at pleasure. Nor is it hereditary, as in the Court of dernier Resort, in the Peerage of England. But any Man who can procure Pen, Ink, and Paper, with a Press, and a huge pair of Blacking Balls, may commissionate himself; and his court is immediately established in the plenary Possession and exercise of its rights. For, if you make the least complaint of the judge's conduct, he daubs his blacking balls in your face wherever he meets you; and, besides tearing your private character to flitters, marks you out for the odium of the public, as an enemy to the liberty of the press.
Of the natural Support of these Courts.
Their support is founded in the depravity of such minds, as have not been mended by religion, nor improved by good education;
"There is a Lust in Man no Charm can tame, Of loudly publishing his Neighbour's Shame."
Hence;
"On Eagle's Wings immortal Scandals fly, While virtuous Actions are but born and die."
Dryden.
Whoever feels pain in hearing a good character of his neighbour, will feel a pleasure in the reverse. And of those who, despairing to rise into distinction by their virtues, are happy if others can be depressed to a level with themselves, there are a number sufficient in every great town to maintain one of these courts by their subscriptions. A shrewd observer once said, that, in walking the streets in a slippery morning, one might see where the good-natured people lived by the ashes thrown on the ice before their doors; probably he would have formed a different conjecture of the temper of those whom he might find engaged in such a subscription.
Of the Checks proper to be established against the Abuse of Power in these Courts.
Hitherto there are none. But since so much has been written and published on the federal Constitution, and the necessity of checks in all other parts of good government has been so clearly and learnedly explained, I find myself so far enlightened as to suspect some check may be proper in this part also; but I have been at a loss to imagine any that may not be construed an infringement of the sacred liberty of the press. At length, however, I think I have found one that, instead of diminishing general liberty, shall augment it; which is, by restoring to the people a species of liberty, of which they have been deprived by our laws, I mean the liberty of the cudgel. In the rude state of society prior to the existence of laws, if one man gave another ill language, the affronted person would return it by a box on the ear, and, if repeated, by a good drubbing; and this without offending against any law. But now the right of making such returns is denied, and they are punished as breaches of the peace; while the right of abusing seems to remain in full force, the laws made against it being rendered ineffectual by the liberty of the press.
My proposal then is, to leave the liberty of the press untouched, to be exercised in its full extent, force, and vigor; but to permit the liberty of the cudgel to go with it pari passu. Thus, my fellow-citizens, if an impudent writer attacks your reputation, dearer to you perhaps than your life, and puts his name to the charge, you may go to him as openly and break his head. If he conceals himself behind the printer, and you can nevertheless discover who he is, you may in like manner way-lay him in the night, attack him behind, and give him a good drubbing. Thus far goes my project as to private resentment and retribution. But if the public should ever happen to be affronted, as it ought to be, with the conduct of such writers, I would not advise proceeding immediately to these extremities; but that we should in moderation content ourselves with tarring and feathering, and tossing them in a blanket.
If, however, it should be thought that this proposal of mine may disturb the public peace, I would then humbly recommend to our legislators to take up the consideration of both liberties, that of the press, and that of the cudgel, and by an explicit law mark their extent and limits; and, at the same time that they secure the person of a citizen from assaults, they would likewise provide for the security of his reputation.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment I (Speech and Press), Document 16
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs16.html
The University of Chicago Press
The Writings of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Albert Henry Smyth. 10 vols. New York: Macmillan Co., 1905--7.
© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
Benjamin Franklin, An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz., The Court of the Press
12 Sept. 1789 Writings 10:36--40
Power of this Court.
It may receive and promulgate accusations of all kinds, against all persons and characters among the citizens of the State, and even against all inferior courts; and may judge, sentence, and condemn to infamy, not only private individuals, but public bodies, &c., with or without inquiry or hearing, at the court's discretion.
In whose Favour and for whose Emolument this Court is established.
In favour of about one citizen in five hundred, who, by education or practice in scribbling, has acquired a tolerable style as to grammar and construction, so as to bear printing; or who is possessed of a press and a few types. This five hundredth part of the citizens have the privilege of accusing and abusing the other four hundred and ninety-nine parts at their pleasure; or they may hire out their pens and press to others for that purpose.
Practice of the Court.
It is not governed by any of the rules of common courts of law. The accused is allowed no grand jury to judge of the truth of the accusation before it is publicly made, nor is the Name of the Accuser made known to him, nor has he an Opportunity of confronting the Witnesses against him; for they are kept in the dark, as in the Spanish Court of Inquisition. Nor is there any petty Jury of his Peers, sworn to try the Truth of the Charges. The Proceedings are also sometimes so rapid, that an honest, good Citizen may find himself suddenly and unexpectedly accus'd, and in the same Morning judg'd and condemn'd, and sentence pronounc'd against him, that he is a Rogue and a Villain. Yet, if an officer of this court receives the slightest check for misconduct in this his office, he claims immediately the rights of a free citizen by the constitution, and demands to know his accuser, to confront the witnesses, and to have a fair trial by a jury of his peers.
The Foundation of its Authority.
It is said to be founded on an Article of the Constitution of the State, which establishes the Liberty of the Press; a Liberty which every Pennsylvanian would fight and die for; tho' few of us, I believe, have distinct Ideas of its Nature and Extent. It seems indeed somewhat like the Liberty of the Press that Felons have, by the Common Law of England, before Conviction, that is, to be press'd to death or hanged. If by the Liberty of the Press were understood merely the Liberty of discussing the Propriety of Public Measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the Liberty of affronting, calumniating, and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my Share of it when our Legislators shall please so to alter the Law, and shall cheerfully consent to exchange my Liberty of Abusing others for the Privilege of not being abus'd myself.
By Whom this Court is commissioned or constituted.
It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the Abilities, Integrity, Knowledge, &c. of the Persons to be appointed to this great Trust, of deciding upon the Characters and good Fame of the Citizens; for this Court is above that Council, and may accuse, judge, and condemn it, at pleasure. Nor is it hereditary, as in the Court of dernier Resort, in the Peerage of England. But any Man who can procure Pen, Ink, and Paper, with a Press, and a huge pair of Blacking Balls, may commissionate himself; and his court is immediately established in the plenary Possession and exercise of its rights. For, if you make the least complaint of the judge's conduct, he daubs his blacking balls in your face wherever he meets you; and, besides tearing your private character to flitters, marks you out for the odium of the public, as an enemy to the liberty of the press.
Of the natural Support of these Courts.
Their support is founded in the depravity of such minds, as have not been mended by religion, nor improved by good education;
"There is a Lust in Man no Charm can tame, Of loudly publishing his Neighbour's Shame."
Hence;
"On Eagle's Wings immortal Scandals fly, While virtuous Actions are but born and die."
Dryden.
Whoever feels pain in hearing a good character of his neighbour, will feel a pleasure in the reverse. And of those who, despairing to rise into distinction by their virtues, are happy if others can be depressed to a level with themselves, there are a number sufficient in every great town to maintain one of these courts by their subscriptions. A shrewd observer once said, that, in walking the streets in a slippery morning, one might see where the good-natured people lived by the ashes thrown on the ice before their doors; probably he would have formed a different conjecture of the temper of those whom he might find engaged in such a subscription.
Of the Checks proper to be established against the Abuse of Power in these Courts.
Hitherto there are none. But since so much has been written and published on the federal Constitution, and the necessity of checks in all other parts of good government has been so clearly and learnedly explained, I find myself so far enlightened as to suspect some check may be proper in this part also; but I have been at a loss to imagine any that may not be construed an infringement of the sacred liberty of the press. At length, however, I think I have found one that, instead of diminishing general liberty, shall augment it; which is, by restoring to the people a species of liberty, of which they have been deprived by our laws, I mean the liberty of the cudgel. In the rude state of society prior to the existence of laws, if one man gave another ill language, the affronted person would return it by a box on the ear, and, if repeated, by a good drubbing; and this without offending against any law. But now the right of making such returns is denied, and they are punished as breaches of the peace; while the right of abusing seems to remain in full force, the laws made against it being rendered ineffectual by the liberty of the press.
My proposal then is, to leave the liberty of the press untouched, to be exercised in its full extent, force, and vigor; but to permit the liberty of the cudgel to go with it pari passu. Thus, my fellow-citizens, if an impudent writer attacks your reputation, dearer to you perhaps than your life, and puts his name to the charge, you may go to him as openly and break his head. If he conceals himself behind the printer, and you can nevertheless discover who he is, you may in like manner way-lay him in the night, attack him behind, and give him a good drubbing. Thus far goes my project as to private resentment and retribution. But if the public should ever happen to be affronted, as it ought to be, with the conduct of such writers, I would not advise proceeding immediately to these extremities; but that we should in moderation content ourselves with tarring and feathering, and tossing them in a blanket.
If, however, it should be thought that this proposal of mine may disturb the public peace, I would then humbly recommend to our legislators to take up the consideration of both liberties, that of the press, and that of the cudgel, and by an explicit law mark their extent and limits; and, at the same time that they secure the person of a citizen from assaults, they would likewise provide for the security of his reputation.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment I (Speech and Press), Document 16
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs16.html
The University of Chicago Press
The Writings of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Albert Henry Smyth. 10 vols. New York: Macmillan Co., 1905--7.
© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
Amendment I (Speech and Press): Benjamin Franklin, An Account of the Supremest Court of...
It may receive and promulgate accusations of all kinds,against all persons and characters among the citizens ofthe State, and even against all inferior courts; and mayjudge, sentence, and condemn to infamy, not only privateindividuals, but public bodies, &c., with or without inquiryor hearing, at the court's discretion.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
I do like Ben's sentiment about how some in the press should be treated at times -
"But if the public should ever happen to be affronted, as it ought to be, with the conduct of such writers, I would not advise proceeding immediately to these extremities (to use a cudgel on them); but that we should in moderation content ourselves with tarring and feathering, and tossing them in a blanket."
I do believe that is what President Trump is doing in his own manner.
"But if the public should ever happen to be affronted, as it ought to be, with the conduct of such writers, I would not advise proceeding immediately to these extremities (to use a cudgel on them); but that we should in moderation content ourselves with tarring and feathering, and tossing them in a blanket."
I do believe that is what President Trump is doing in his own manner.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
interesting But If someone checks the Federalist papers and they can get a direct insight into the reason it was written as it was.. bit the advancement of technology may leave a few Gray areas...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Now here is MY answer to that question I posed. NO they were NOT.
Freedom of the Press, as mentioned in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution was not talking about CNN or MSNBC or ABC or FoxNews.
It was talking about freedom of the press in general in the sense that ANYONE could post or print anything they wanted to paper JUST LIKE anyone could say anything they wanted out of their own mouths.
Today, we see the mainstream media trying to take credit for and state that the founding fathers LINE ITEM'd the actual mainstream press in the Constitution. BULLSHIT. And they are delusional.
I have seen reporters from both CNN and MSNBC in the last few days try to state this crap saying "we are the fourth branch of government because the 1st Amendment says we are". What a bunch of misguided liberal bullshit.
As I said, Free Speech and Freedom of the Press are basically the same albeit one comes from your mouth, the other from a paper you may post, write on or otherwise distribute in writing or other means. It is NOT about 'news' organizations. Not even close.
Freedom of the Press, as mentioned in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution was not talking about CNN or MSNBC or ABC or FoxNews.
It was talking about freedom of the press in general in the sense that ANYONE could post or print anything they wanted to paper JUST LIKE anyone could say anything they wanted out of their own mouths.
Today, we see the mainstream media trying to take credit for and state that the founding fathers LINE ITEM'd the actual mainstream press in the Constitution. BULLSHIT. And they are delusional.
I have seen reporters from both CNN and MSNBC in the last few days try to state this crap saying "we are the fourth branch of government because the 1st Amendment says we are". What a bunch of misguided liberal bullshit.
As I said, Free Speech and Freedom of the Press are basically the same albeit one comes from your mouth, the other from a paper you may post, write on or otherwise distribute in writing or other means. It is NOT about 'news' organizations. Not even close.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - I'd like to ask about the 4th Amendment. How can the government conduct surveillance on the People and not violate the 4th A. The collection of meta-data, the Sting-Ray Cell Phone towers that collect information, to me seem like a violation.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PO1 Todd B.
Capt Gregory Prickett - I did not say it does not cover CNN, Fox etc.. What I said was the 1st Amendment was NOT referring to THEM specifically as they are claiming on live air. AND it sure never intended for the mainstream press to make the assumption they are the "4th branch" of government because the Constitution says so.
My comment was to say it was about speech in OTHER forms than just voice but was NOT specific to what CNN, MSNBC and others are claiming now.
My comment was to say it was about speech in OTHER forms than just voice but was NOT specific to what CNN, MSNBC and others are claiming now.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Todd B.
LTC (Join to see) - I would like to know the same thing. It is this very reason that I actually believe Edward Snowden to be a patriot, not a traitor. He stepped up and let WE the people know this was happening. He did NOT sell or give away secrets. No, instead he told the American people what our government was doing to we the people behind our back and in violation of the US Constitution.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google