there are limitations on a single corporation owning newspapers and television stations in the same market.

This is correct, but this is not what I had inferred you were suggesting when you said (in #23)

While you might not consider it a freedom of the press issue, there long have been limitations on newspaper ownership (as well as television station ownership).

I had inferred that you were considering newspaper ownership separate and apart from television station ownership.

I agree, there’s nothing on the books prohibiting the press from saying what it wants to say. But since a civil law suit can impose substantial penalties on the press for libel, I’d say that’s a limitation on freedom of the press because Congress and the courts have not prohibited libel suits and judgments.

Given that libel cases are–as far as I know–usually tried under state law (although some cases may be tried in federal courts under diversity jurisdiction) it is far from clear that Congress has the power to limit state libel laws.

Watching the (”former federal prosecutor”) bimbos on the CNN and FOX panels of legal analysts try and convict defendants before jury pools are even summoned and the first evidence presented in court, I prefer England’s restrictions on what its press can print or air about criminal cases.

The likelihood of that last happening is between slim and none. BTW, I share your concern about the “legal analysts,” but I’ll merely point out that I have far more concern over the apparent fact that both the prosecution and defense in criminal cases want to try their cases in the news media long before they ever get to court. This is clear from the prosecutions’ “perp walks” and news conferences on the one hand, and the defenses’ news conferences on the other. As far as I’m concerned, both sides should shut up until they get to court.

Yes, I was aware that the fairness doctrine was repealed. The point of including it was that while in effect it placed limitations on the freedoms of the electronic press.

I agree, there’s nothing on the books prohibiting the press from saying what it wants to say. But since a civil law suit can impose substantial penalties on the press for libel, I’d say that’s a limitation on freedom of the press because Congress and the courts have not prohibited libel suits and judgments. Having been a publisher, I can tell you that publishers and their attorneys are often cautious about printing negative information about indiciduals, etc. Sometimes, much to the chagrin of reporters and editors, attorneys convince publishers to spike stories for fear of libel suits.

Despite ties to the business, I’d like to see some limitations on the press. Watching the (“former federal prosecutor”) bimbos on the CNN and FOX panels of legal analysts try and convict defendants before jury pools are even summoned and the first evidence presented in court, I prefer England’s restrictions on what its press can print or air about criminal cases. The way the oress, both print and electronic, has handled the Duke rape “scandal”, as just one example, is evidence of the growing irresponsibility of the American press.

If you actually were aware of what the Constitution says, you would admit that the courts have been enforcing the 1st Amendment’s speech and press provisions more in the breach than in the main. I know full well that the courts have carved out more than a few exceptions to the speech and press provisions. I cited one case (Abrams) and I could cite you other cases until the cows come home that show that. I’ll merely cite two others: U.S. vs. Schenck and U.S. vs. Frohwerk. And there are others.

Apparently, the benefit of having a written Constitution is lost on you: if the Constitution is not going to be enforced as written, why bother having one?

Libel immediately comes to mind. Whether it’s the New York Times or the Podunk Gazette, the press cannot libel individuals, organizations, corporations, etc.

Actually, yes they can. But they would have to pay (money) if they have been found to have libeled someone. But I will merely point out to you that libel is a tort created by the courts. There is no federal criminal aspect to libel. And the tort of libel was not created by Congress–remember the provision of the 1st amendment that states “Congress shall make no law”? Try again.

While you might not consider it a freedom of the press issue, (i) there long have been limitations on newspaper ownership (ii) (as well as television station ownership). (indicia added by me)

Regarding (i), there long have been limitations on newspaper ownership? That’s news to me. Other than the financial wherewithall to own a newspaper, what limitations are there? Citations, please.

Regarding (ii) “as well as television station ownership,” those limitations were founded on the fact that gov’t licenses broadcasters. In other words, gov’t limits the number of broadcasters who can operate in any given market, the frequencies on which they operate, the broadcast power, and other things. And the ownership limitations are based on that. We can quibble over whether gov’t licensing itself is a violation of the 1st amendment, but the ownership limitation is–or at least was–based on the fact that its licensing program limited competition, and that it would be unfair to the public for a single company, or only a few companies, to own all of the stations in a given market. Broadcasters like the fact that the gov’t's licensing program limits competition, and, in return, they kind-of live with, although it should be clear that the big broadcasting companies have, in recent years, been pushing to loosen the ownership limitations.

There are more limitations on the electronic press than the print press, including equal time provisions…

I guess it escaped your notice that the FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Congress tried to pass it into law–it was previously just an FCC regulation–but St. Ronald, he of Reagan, vetoed the measure. So much for free speech, or access to the airwaves by the public that supposedly owns them.

I don’t care what you say about the First Amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not absolute. There are not many limitations, but there are limitations — more on individual speech than on the press — and they have been upheld by the courts.

Libel immediately comes to mind. Whether it’s the New York Times or the Podunk Gazette, the press cannot libel individuals, organizations, corporations, etc. There is an exceptionally-high standard of proof required to convict the press.

While you might not consider it a freedom of the press issue, there long have been limitations on newspaper ownership (as well as television station ownership).

There are more limitations on the electronic press than the print press, including equal time provisions, penalties for obscenities, etc.

Go sit in the corner until you get a clue.

Regards,
Peter H.

Treason is defined in Article III (not Article I) and, raj, the reason there are statues is Article III empowered Congress to establish punishments for treason.

Actually, we’re both a bit incorrect. You are correct that it is Art. III that mentions treason, but it is also the fact that the power to define and punish treason is inherent in any sovereign. See, for example, the brief for the United States in the case Abrams vs. United States:

It should be noted that the power of Congress to define the offence of treason-the most dangerous of all to the safety of the State-is only granted in the Constitution by implication in section 3 of Article 3. Clearly it was supposed that the power to define such an offense and to punish it was inherent in Congress, the only thing deemed necessary being the limitation of this inherent power.

(emphasis added)

But the fact is that the reference to treason in Art III is a limitation on the power of Congress, not an affirmative grant. The Constitution was not written in a vacuum, as should be evident from the Federalist Papers.

Because of First Amendment protections for the press, there is an exceptionally-high standard for proving that the press has committed a crime…

I do hope that you realize that you are saying that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. The 1st amendment specifically says that “Congress shall make no law….” How does that comport with your idea that congress can make a law specifically abridging a provision of the Constitution if there is an “exceptionally-high standard” of proof–whatever that means? Either the words of the Constitution actually mean something, or they don’t. You are suggesting that they don’t.

The government official(s) or congressional staffer(s) who leaked this information to the NYT, if they can be identified, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

You aren’t going to get an argument from me about that. Although I do believe that you may be a bit rash in your assumption that it was governmental officials or congressional staffers who actually leaked the information. That was the import of my citation of the Ha’aretz article. And, it should be noted that the reporting of Reagan’s “arms-for-hostages” deal was broken in a middle-east newspaper (if memory serves; it was from a newspaper in the region) before it was reported here. The points being that (i) successful terrorists might be vile, but they are not dumb, (ii) it was fairly well known years ago that the US gov’t would be trying to monitor inter-bank money transfers, and (iii) it is highly likely that any reasonably successful terrorists would have made “other arrangements” so that their money transfers would not show up in official records. Much like, I would be surprise if any reasonably successful terrorists would be using cell phones other than the “pre-paid” phones that one can buy anywhere off the street.

BTW, Abrams’s conviction was, of course, affirmed. Again indicating that the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee means little or nothing.

Also, I don’t particularly care whether you consider yourself to be a conservative. I haven’t followed your posts here, but the sad fact for conservatives in the US is that conservatism is what the predominate self-described conservative politicians claim it to be–particularly if they are elected to office. If you note, I have made no reference to conservatism in this comment.

Treason is defined in Article III (not Article I) and, raj, the reason there are statues is Article III empowered Congress to establish punishments for treason.

Because of First Amendment protections for the press, there is an exceptionally-high standard for proving that the press has committed a crime; in the case of the New York Times, possible treason. While it is clear that the NYT is aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States, I doubt that the newspaper could be convicted of intentionally committing treason — at least as defined in Article III. And it would be a waste of government resources to try to prosecute the NYT. Besides, if the NYT were prosecuted and wins before a Republican Supreme Court, the elite media would take a NYT victory as a green light for more mischief and irresponsibility.

The government official(s) or congressional staffer(s) who leaked this information to the NYT, if they can be identified, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Unfortunately, although they betrayed their country, they probably can’t be charged with treason because of a technicality: they didn’t give the information directly to the terrorists.

BTW, raj, please don’t call me a “conservative”. That term used to describe what I believe in, what I stand for. While I haven’t changed, the contemporary meaning of “conservative” sure has.

You mentioned several motives you’ve considered at different times, and I believe they all apply and are intertwined.

MSM left-liberal types are of the post-modern, “sophisticated internationalist”, anti-Vietnam War / anti-military, and pro-abortion generation(s) and school(s) of thought. They believe they should run the world. Whatever their stated, intellectual reasons for opposing Bush, emotionally they despise him for being sincerely (1) anti-abortion, (2) non-intellectual, (3) pro-American.

So: the BDS or Bush-hatred, the general arrogance, the desire for Pulitzers, the instinctive desire to see pro-American “rednecks” knocked down a peg, and the craving for the approval of foreigners all fit together and reinforce one another. In my view.

(No one should assume from the above that I am anti-abortion. Only that I accept and respect those who are.)

Regardless of analyzing emotions and motives, the bottom line remains that the MSM left-liberal types have put their partisan views (their desire to knock Bush and restore Democrat rule) ahead of American success in the GWOT.

Just more evidence that Reynolds is a nut.

lester, the only “abuse” of the Constitution in this matter was an “abuse” of the intent of the First Amendment by the New York Times. I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever imagined that “freedom of the press” would end up being a shield for editors who deliberately betray their country’s best interests and put its citizens at risk from foreign enemies.

It’s interesting that you can claim to devine the “intent” of the 1st Amendment. How did you do that from persons long dead? Did you hold a seance? One might be able to devine an “intent” from the various versions that had been considered in congress before it was passed to the states for ratification, but if you were to do that you would discover that the congress broadened the scope of the amendment in each successive draft of the amendment, not narrow it. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1

It’s amusing that conservatives actually believe that it is an “abuse” of the constitution to make use of one’s rights thereunder. But that only goes to show that conservatives really don’t believe in the rule of law–when it differs from their most cherished beliefs.

By definition I would think this is a treasonous act.

Apparently you, like many other conservatives, are unable to read the text of the 1st Amendment. What part of “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” do you all not understand? Given that the 1st Amendment was ratified after the ratification of the rump Constitution (that is, the Constitution without the Amendments) it takes precedence over anything that was in the rump Constitution. Including anything having to do with treason.

I recognize that the federal government has honored the speech and press protections of the 1st Amendment more in the breach than in the main, but that only goes to show you that conservatives really aren’t all that interested in the freedoms that were and supposedly are promised in the Constitution.

BTW, I could go on about the “treason” provision of Article I, but it should be clear that that was more a limitation on what the federal government could consider treason than anything else. It was not an affirmative criminal provision–if it had been there would have been no need for the federal government to codify the crime of treason in the federal criminal code.

Interesting Trace. – Just for my personal curiosity: would that mean (in your mind) that those “accusing the MSM of purposely aiding and abetting America’s enemies” were wrong – until now?

Today’s winner is the New York York Times and its Executive editor Bill Keller….

Thanks for replying!

I agree–whoever leaked the info should be ferreted out and prosecuted.

It was reported on Fox News’ “Special Report” this evening, Friday, 23 June. The network reported that the NYT’s editor, a man named Weller, I believe, rejected requests by administration and congressional officials that the story not be printed (or, at least, key details be left out). The report added that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission had also called the NYT and asked that the story not be printed.

By the way, Charles Krauthammer said he had information that even Congressman John Murtha voiced objections to the NYT.

I’ve avoided jumping on the bandwagon of those accusing the MSM of purposely aiding and abetting America’s enemies. Until now. The NYT found no abuse of citizens’ rights and the administration presented evidence to the NYT that the program is carefully administered and vital to our security. So why did the NYT still print the story, knowing to do so might harm the country? Because the NYT doesn’t care about the country’s security.

Furthermore, whomever leaked the information to the NYT should be ferreted out and prosecuted for treason.

In case you missed it, lester, the Bush Administration briefed the congressional leadership and all the appropriate oversight committees in the House and Senate about this operation.

And, most importantly, lester, the chairman and co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission pleaded with the New York Times not to reveal the existence of this operation.