<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">On May 29, 2019, at 5:42 PM, William Flynn Wallace <<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com">foozler83@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"> Can this forum become a journalists’ hangout? Then if so, are we extended all US first amendment rights? <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">spike</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">Yeah. Just what is the 'press'? No license. No degree necessary. No sense necessary. </font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><br></font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">And maybe someone can explain what rights are in the press part of the second amendment that aren't covered in the first? When the Bill of Rights was written, probably they did not think of writing as speech, but if burning flags is speech, then written material should be too. Gang?</font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><br></font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">bill w</font></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Look at the text of the First Amendment.... It already covers both freedom of speech and of the press. Also, don’t you think they had both publications — books, newspapers, pamphlets, handbills, etc. — and public oratory back then? It’s not like the Amendment was written in a society where only a tiny number of professionals wrote and read and never ever spoke to each other.<div><br></div><div>Of course, the interpretation of the text is a different matter, though most arguments limiting free expression have been more about either social mores (obscenity restrictions) or national security than about what the nature of expression is as such. (The idiotic “crying fire in a theater” argument is a bit different, though it was used to cover national security: to limit antiwar protest when the US entered WW1 and not to protect theatergoers. Notably, theaters (and fires in them) weren’t a Twentieth Century innovation.) Or at least that’s my belief. </div><div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div style="line-height: normal;"><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Regards,</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dan</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> Sample my Kindle books at:</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><p style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="http://author.to/DanUst">http://author.to/DanUst</a></span></p></div></div></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>