Today, we look back on Putz's penetrating legal analysis of the First Amendment of the US Constitution which dates from 5/18/2004.
Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn't exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority -- or even a large and angry minority -- of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. How far are we from that point?This concludes this segment of Classic Putz.
5 comments:
Could someone explain what is putzerific about this classic? I think maybe I'm missing something.
I think there's a couple pretty classically putzy points there, Adam. One, Putz's theory that the freedom of the press didn't "really" exist until the 1960s (!), and two, his notion that we're might abolish it, if enough wingtards like Putz keep insisting that it's enabling the terrorists.
Ah. I'm boycotting the putz, so I didn't click on the link and see the terrorism connection.
Still, I find this post pretty thought provoking. Obviously freedom of the press existed before the '60s, as it's in the Constitution. So I guessed he meant it was "reinterpreted" in the '60s. I briefly tried to find info on this "reinterpretation" in wikipedia, and came up with nothing. Does anyone know what he might be referring to?
I do know somewhat about Watergate, might he be referring to that? In that era we did (re?)learn the importance of secret sources, amongst other things. But that's having the importance of freedom of the press confirmed; I wouldn't call that a change.
Now as for argument two: if the majority of the people really started believing that freedom of the press is unnecessary, I must agree with the Putz. Certainly it would be bad for democracy if a minority belief took effect on such an important issue. But if a true and clear majority wanted badly to kill freedom of the press, then I would hope it wouldn't "survive", via either a Constitutional amendment or a Constitutional reinterpretation.
Here's hoping if that does happen, the Putz is the first to be censored. (Love the site, btw.)
Glad you enjoy the site, Adam! Spread the word, won't you?
"So I guessed he meant it was "reinterpreted" in the '60s. I briefly tried to find info on this "reinterpretation" in wikipedia, and came up with nothing. Does anyone know what he might be referring to?"
Well, I'm not surprised you couldn't find it. This isn't the first time Putz has made a questionable claim -- check out, for instance, his assertion that Congress "declared war" on Iraq.
Now as for argument two: if the majority of the people really started believing that freedom of the press is unnecessary, I must agree with the Putz.
I happen to think his argument is silly. It's the same, glib, populist argument he makes about torture. ("Hmm, well the public seems to want it, so...").
I don't buy it. And I think that the percentage of people who believe the free press should be curbed is tiny -- even less than the same number as those who currently support Putz's beloved Great Leader.
My guess is that he's referring to New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which held that plaintiffs seeking libel damages must prove that the media outlet showed actual malice. While it made it more difficult to win a libel suit, actual libel cases have grown since 1964, and the overall process has become more costly.
That said, freedom of the press has always been enshrined in the Constitution. Journalism has become much more professional and aggressive since the 1960s, which may bother Reynolds, but that's reflective of the industry, not constitutional rights.
Post a Comment