"clifto" wrote in message
news a lot of stuff comparing freedom of the press to freedom of religion

Isn't this argument a bit specious?

The First Amendment says:

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.

It's saying that the government can make no law either for or against
religion, and no law against freedom of the press, among other things.

But let's take these one at a time.

1a Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

This clearly means that the government may not choose a religion to support
(i.e. a state religion)

1b or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That the government may not make a law preventing you from practicing any
religion you wish in a free and unfettered manner. This part has long been
tossed by the wayside for practical purposes which the founding fathers
likely never considered at the time, due primarily to the fact that
Christianity, in various forms, was about the only religion practiced in the
US at the time. I doubt they considered Satan worshipping requiring human
sacrifice, or some of the off the wall religions requiring wife swapping,
pedophilia or other bizarre or illegal behavior. Add to that the so-called
separation of church and state (alluded to to some extent in 1a) having been
adjudicated to the point of being ludicrous (a child praying in school has
nothing to do with whether the school, a government institution, is
recognizing a religion). And for those who gripe about federal recognition
of Christmas as a federal holiday.. if nothing else, it's expeditious. Since
the government cannot force people to work rather than observe a religious
holiday, it makes sense to make it an official federal holiday, allowing the
workers time off for it instead of docking their pay.

1c or abridging the freedom of speech

Again, this is not an absolute, nor has it ever been. The thing about free
speech is that you must bear the responsibility for that speech. If you yell
fire in a crowded theater you will be held responsible for damages and
casualties due to your use of free speech in that case. If you advocate
violence, and violence occurs, you will be held responsible for the
consequences. If you threaten the life of the president, you will be
arrested and likely go to prison. Technically, free speech is not free.
This section of the amendment only says that no one can stop you from making
a fool of yourself.

1d or of the press

This is much the same as 1c above, with the same caveats.

1e or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble

This one took a beating during the last elections.. where people were forced
into pens in certain restricted areas to 'peaceably assemble'.

1f and to petition the government for redress of grievances

Not sure when this one actually went down in flames, but I do know that now
you must get the government's permission to sue them, and under some
sections of the Patriot Act, you aren't even allowed to know whether you
have any grievances at all.


As to the heading of the thread... if the US government wants to plant
stories in the Iraqi press, and pay for it.. they should do it the way the
rest of us must do, and either buy openly noticed paid space or send it as
an editorial, and it should be printed or broadcast as such. I.e. like a
paid infomercial. Otherwise, whether truth or lie, it is a manipulation. And
doing what has been done in a covert fashion only makes it look like
everything MUST be a lie, to those to whom such news is disseminated.