H.R. 347 Does Not Violate First Amendment.

It’s often hard to tell responsible journalism from baldpropaganda; but some can argue this is no longer a distinction with any real difference. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of law.

A recent article at Salon.com reporting the so-called “anti-Occupy bill” (H.R. 347) demonstrates a knowledge of Constitutional law that should embarrass a second year law student. But in fairness Salon.com’s coverage is typical of a cookie-cutter reportage that displays an intellectual integrity reminiscent of Janet Malcolm's famous indictment that "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible."

Again, I can’t just blame one publication for typifying thestandard of care (for lack of a better term) that has become all to common amongst Internet publications. Indeed, one can fairly argue that ‘yellow journalism’ dominates the Internet and this seems abashedly true in my own court on the left.When I witness the perversion of a phrase so simple as the right to ‘peaceable assembly’ I am miffed, mortified, and appalled, by the perversion and corruption of plain language willfully bastardized by propagandists who demonstrate the reading comprehension skills of every child left behind.

The first law of journalism is attribution but like most reports loaded with opinion few writers even think of providing a simple link to the proposed legislation. So easy. After all, that might interfere with spin and astute readers with a thimble-full of legal education might actually read it and compare it to the plain language of the First Amendment which it clearly does not violate but only affirms.

Instead of telling us, with their own hyperbolic adjectives (“shameful restrictions”), what the legislation says journalists should just show us a copy of the bill so we can, like, think for ourselves? Of course that (giving readers the information necessary to think for ourselves) runs the of a risk for propagandists with their own agenda and who prefer to do our thinking for us. One can suspect their target audience is comprised of lazy or over-burdened minds who prefer to have their prejudices affirmed and their opinions spoon-fed.

The hysterical propaganda surrounding this pending legislation only serves to damage the credibility of journalists. It’s also a disservice. If extremists on the right drive out the moderates the equally extreme on the left do the same. If they seek an intelligent and informed readership they are their own worst enemy; but, again, I doubt such is their audience. To quote Abraham Lincoln, when it comes to matters of law certain pundits are “best to remain silent and be presumed ignorant rather than open their mouths to remove all doubt.” I use the term journalist very loosely here for, in the dark age of tabloid journalism, the words journalist and propagandist have become almost fungible terms. A distinction with no real difference.

That, by definition, is not– by any stretch of the imagination– ‘peaceful assembly’ which is all First Amendment protects. The right to ‘peaceful assembly' clearly does not include the right to knowingly enter a restricted areas to intentionally impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government nor does it grant anyone the right engage in "disorderly or disruptive conduct [that] in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business. One must have to an I.Q. somewhere below 85 to think such behavior would be peaceful assembly.’

Some journalists, under the guise of ‘objectivity’, just provide he said she said reports often making sure that what’s reported communicates a message the reporter wants to convey. This is called propaganda. And some journalists are just too stupid or too full of themselves to notice what is going; but those who can read and comprehend plain language at freshman level yet choose to misrepresent it so as to poison hearts and minds lack the intellectual integrity to know that what they do is morally indefensible. If journalists can’t read or comprehend the plain language of the First Amendment, and can’t comprehend that HR 347 affirms rather than a violates it, then they might better serve the public interest by selling shoes at Macy’s.

In closing, just in case anyone still suffers reading comprehension skills, let me spell this out: Subject toReasonable Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions, the First Amendment only guarantees the right to “p.e.a.c.e.a.b.l.y assemble.” If people can not comprehend the common-sense meaning of those words then further discussion would be useless and smart-ass comments only guarantee reasonable people won’t mistake them for a class act – which is largely why we needed this law in the first place.

http://open.salon.com/blog/f_arouete/2012/03/07/hr_347_does_not_violate_first_amendment