Well, let’s revisit our friend, the old bill o’ frights, I mean, Bill of rights. It seems that some folks would want to interfere with our friends in the press. And now comes a very interesting debate.
The first amendment states: (copied from billofrights.com)
Amendment ICongress 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.
So now the Supreme Court or some court must ultimately decide if Judith Miller’s decision to protect her sources abridges freedom of the press. Let’s face it, there is a strong belief that if her source(s) turn out to be Whitehouse Staffers, there could be some huge problems for President Bush, and the GOP. This also may be why we haven’t seen too much heat from the GOP in wanting to see her reveal the sources, (ie, comply with the Special Prosecutor/Grand Jury’s requests). Ah when the shoe is on the other foot.
I only hope that this means a bipartisan push to solidify the strength of the 1st Amendment when it comes to freedom of the press. The next question today is what defines the press? With the Internet and bloggers and webportals and emerging guerrilla journalism, it seems that this profession has evolved into something potentially larger than our founding fathers ever could have imagined.
Honestly, I don’t believe that the Internet has yet drawn the masses away from mainstream media outlets such as Newspapers, TV News, and Radio. However I do believe it provides some of the first and best coverage that anyone is able to get on a wide variety of topics. These bricks and mortar News Agencies draw from the Internet in a big way, and the blogging community becomes a source unto itself that may need some protecting… ie the first amendment.
And the circle is complete.
Plug for the day: Huffingtonpost.com