"When the sacred Second Amendment is in question, with its implied right to own an assault rifle, the gun owners get all up in arms (no pun intended), but when a newspaper exercises its First Amendment rights by publishing public record, they want these rights restricted."
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Westchester | Weighing 1st vs. 2nd amendments
25 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That certainly seems to be the case.
ReplyDeleteWitness the right wing's attack on CNN chat show host Piers Morgan. They want him deported because he suggested it might be time for sensible gun legislation. So they want him deported for exercising his First Amendment rights talking about the Second Amendment. Oh the irony.
Rubbish. The Constitution does not give an alien any right to remain in this country.
DeleteActually many courts have ruled that anyone in this country, citizen or not, is afforded all of the same rights citizens have, excepting the right to vote, that's why non-citizens arrested for a crime have the same Miranda rights a citizen has. Morgan's comments are certainly constitutionally protected speech. There may be a good reason to deport him (if proven, involvement in the criminal practice of phone hacking in the UK would be one), but speaking his mind is not.
DeleteAn alien haa the same constitutional rights as a citizen. However, a non-citizen can be deported if convicted of a crime which is not the issue here.
DeleteYou also can't deport someone with a green card who expresses an opinion you don't agree with.
DeleteUltimately it's up to Congress. A British subject who agitates to undermine the Bill of Rights has worn out his welcome and should be bundled onto the next flight out.
DeleteBoth are being misinterpreted, the cost is very high. But yes, the irony of the outbursts, by the very same crowd that is so quick to covet both these amendments, when they give protection for their selfish behavior.
ReplyDeleteOwning a gun is selfish? Please explain.
DeleteIdentifying people who own certain things or work certain jobs or belong to certain groups is certainly protected by the First Amendment. Asking to deport Piers Morgan is also protected. But why the hell would anyone want to exercise their rights in these ways? What is really gained? This is all hurtful toward the targeted group (or targeted CNN celebrity). And it is so divisive.
ReplyDeleteThese people aren't asking to deport Piers Morgan. They're demanding.Showing themselves to be a bunch of idiots. (Not a Piers fan, by the way, but the whole argument is insipid.
Deletewhy not list the names and addresses of all non-retired welfare recipitants? Maybe all companies that have shipped jobs overseas (of course they would then need to include thier own name and address)
ReplyDeleteCertainly Piers has the right to exercise his First Amendment right just as equally as I have the right to exercise my Second Amendment right. Publishing gun owner's names and addresses doesn't make sense and in fact, could cause more harm than good in "informing" concerned citizens-because in your informing good-intentioned citizens, you are also informing those who may not have the public's best interest in mind and use that knowledge to commit a crime they otherwise may not have been able to commit so easily. Way to go Liberal Media, way to go!
ReplyDeleteNo crimes have happened because the paper chose to exercise the First Amendment in this way, now guns on the other hand have done immeasurable harm and will continue to do so in the future.
DeleteThe story comes across as a shameless stunt - more so without other firearm ownwership data, a story seemingly attempted by a weakening newspaper to see if has any agenda setting mojo left.
ReplyDeleteArguing for or against the First and Second Amendments as some have only hides what the JN really appears to have done.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/blog-turns-tables-on-gun-map-paper-85520.html?ml=la
ReplyDeleteI guess the blogger does have a point. Let's say an abused woman has purchased a hand gun to protect herself. And the person who has abused her in the past now knows that she has a permit to carry a gun. Now, if he shows up to -- fight, or whatever with her -- and brings a gun and then something happens, does the newspaper have some tie to escalating the crime? It's an interesting point to consider.
Sure the information was public record anyway. But the access to the information is now much easier to obtain.
The extremes on both sides -- gun owners and the press -- are protected. The key is to moderate everyone's views and reach common sense...seemingly beyond the culture's ability anymore.
ReplyDeleteI am forced to wonder if we would be supporting LoHud's actions if they had published the home addresses of doctors who provide abortions instead.
ReplyDeleteThat information is also publicly available and their actions are also constitutionally protected. I suspect that such a list would be roundly panned by the same people supporting LoHud today.
If we're going to start publishing data bases like that, let's do one on everyone who has ever received a DUI or more than X number of traffic tickets. That would make them a hazard to other drivers and we have a right to know which residents of our towns are dangerous on roadways, right? Where do you want this to stop? How about publishing a data base of people who have voted in the last election so we can single out those who haven't as being unpatriotic? Publishing all these data bases will be fine and dandy until it's you who is made famous in one of these data bases.
ReplyDeleteBoth are great ideas. Thanks for the suggestions.
DeleteWe used to get news of DUIs and other arrests in the local daily newspaper as amatter or course.
DeleteFYI: I just removed a comment where a reader posted under someone else's name. Please don't do that.
ReplyDelete"When the sacred Second Amendment is in question, with its implied right to own an assault rifle, the gun owners get all up in arms (no pun intended), but when a newspaper exercises its First Amendment rights by publishing public record, they want these rights restricted."
ReplyDeleteYet when the names and addresses of the newspaper's employees (also a part of public records) were published online by a blogger, the newspaper editors were mortified at this exercise of the First Amendment.
Hypocracy anyone?
Publishing the names and addresses of those with guns has given the criminal element a fantastic resource for where to look for their next weapons to steal .
ReplyDeleteWhat smart people we have in the media .
We are so blessed !
Having a gun permit <> owning a gun.
DeleteNot having a gun permit <> not owning a gun.
You should be blessed with some more knowledge. Try to get some.
So why would someone want to rob a home when they know the owner of the home is also a registed gun owner? Seems stupid to me. Let everyone know I have guns and maybe they will stay away!!
Delete