tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402705924308796713.post4829705731175198261..comments2023-09-01T06:47:49.231-05:00Comments on First Amendment Religion Clauses: The REST of the First AmendmentHistory Mattershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04564109406277635090noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402705924308796713.post-66718990375864470462010-06-04T09:09:08.741-05:002010-06-04T09:09:08.741-05:00Well, I would point out that there is something of...Well, I would point out that there is something of a difference: there is no Establishment clause for the press. It's "Congress shall make no law abridging ... the freedom of press".<br /><br />So, there is a grounds to make a distinction.<br /><br />As far as Michigan licensing reporters, I suspect it could be legally challenged.LexAequitashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08471211949676784921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402705924308796713.post-5426241715535242842010-05-31T08:51:37.202-05:002010-05-31T08:51:37.202-05:00My goal was to create a comparison between the way...My goal was to create a comparison between the way the religion clause are treated vs. the way the press clause is treated. The Supreme Court has used separation of church and state to block prayers at graduation, for example. In some cases, courts have said that certain public prayers are allowed and others are not, depending on the wording. What would be the results if we used similar logic to allow the SCOTUS to control what newspapers print? Or what bloggers say?<br /><br />I'm for separation of media and state in the same way I'm for separation of church and state. And I'm against either, depending on how silly the application gets. Certainly the Founders wanted to allow free expression of opinion, in the press or in the public square. But did that mean they wanted the press to stay away from the government? Hardly, but in areas of religion that type of logic seems to apply today.<br /><br />Did you know that Michigan is considering a law to license journalists? So certain writers would probably have "rights" that others would not. How does that fit with the "rest" of the First Amendment? This bill requires writing samples to be submitted and requires the journalist to be of "good moral character." Do we want lawmakers judging these things?History Mattershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564109406277635090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402705924308796713.post-63357720881543593612010-05-25T13:55:08.177-05:002010-05-25T13:55:08.177-05:00I think that's a great argument to oppose a ba...I think that's a great argument to oppose a bailout of media agencies.<br /><br />I would be baffled why you would think a "separation of media and state" might be a bad idea as a principle.LexAequitashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08471211949676784921noreply@blogger.com