Mediaboss Marketing

Two major news events over the past week perfectly capture the essence of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the slippery slopes that could lead to chaos due to its theoretical protections.

The first news event was last week'sNewYorkTimesreport that American intelligence units helped Ukraine targetand killRussian generals, this despite the fact that from a policy standpoint, the United States prohibits providing intelligence about the most senior Russian leaders.That same week, theWashington Postreported that U.S. intelligence had "helped Ukraine target and sink the Russian warship the Moskva."

The Russian ship Moskva before sinking

The second news event was the leaked draft order reversingRoe vs. Wade, one widely published last week that signaled that safe abortions, legal since it was decided in 1973, soon will be no more in states that choose to ban or restrict the practice.

The sub-topic under the Roe leak includes reports yesterday that protesters had chosen to picket the private residences of Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, the author of the Roe reversal, Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative who voted to reverse, and Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative who voted with the Court's liberals to leave Roe intact.

The common issue between both major news events is whether freedom of the pressand the public's right to be informedshould ever be curtailed for international or national security purposes? Further, the issue under the second news event is whether the rights of protesters who peacefully assemble at the private homes of sitting justices trumps those jurists and their family members rights to feel safe in their homes?

To begin todays analysis, the First Amendment provides in pertinent part:Congress shall make no law...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, as to news reports about America's shadow involvement in the Russia-Ukraine War, it is clear from the First Amendment's text that the press have every right to publish leaked information from confidential sources within the federal government or military. But as I often say, just because something is legal or right doesn't necessarily make itright, and one can certainly argue that published reports about American intervention in the Russia-Ukraine Warcouldbe used as a pretext for Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin to directly attack American interests or American military personnel in Western Europe.

Whether Putin would make such a move with conventional forces is highly unlikely due to the fact that his military is struggling mightily against an undermanned Ukraine Army and does not have the power to engage with the U.S. and her NATO allies in a protracted manner. But Putincouldauthorize engagements ranging from crippling cyber-attacks (most likely), to nuclear deployments (unlikely but possible), depending on whether he goes all fatalistic like Al Pacino at the end of Brian De Palma's classic filmScarface.

The above facts lead me to ask whether the American press removing all deniability about America's proxy involvement against Russia (per its First Amendment freedom to print) was wise? My gut level response is a strong "no!"

As to the leaked Roe reversal order, one week later, and I am still totally blown away by this breach of court decorum and security. Again, I wrote last week that I've seen traffic and child support hearing judges with far more internal security than what was shown at the highest court in the land!

While the Roe leak was surprising, unlike my stance on the Russia-Ukraine leaks, I have no problem with the media reporting the contents of the order; as I often say, "what must be done eventually might as well be done immediately,"as such, there's no discernable differences between learning that Roe will be a nullity on May 2nd than it would be to learn its fate on, say, June 25th.

Separately, while I fully understand the First Amendment's rights to peaceful assembly and to petition for redress of grievances from an intellectual standpoint, my emotional side simply does not like seeing crowds of people surrounding the homes of any government officials. And while the protesters at Justices Alito, Roberts, and Kavanaugh's homes were peaceful, the slippery slope is, what happens if one or more not so peaceful sorts show up and show out in a violent manner?

Lest we forget that nut-jobs come in both conservative and liberal varieties, and all that it takes is one committed zealot who believes they are defending women and abortion rights to turn a peaceful protest into a bloody mess. Lest we also forget that federal judges and their families have been targeted by murderers in the recentpast!

Last, lest we forget that in our copycat society, that protests at conservative justices homes today could lead to the same occurring at liberal justices homes tomorrow! I believe that many of the same folks that insouciantly shrug their shoulders at seeing Justice Kavanaugh's home surrounded due to their disdain for the man and his judicial philosophy, would be appalled if Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson or Justice Sonia Sotomayor's homes were surrounded by MAGA hat wearing protesters following a ruling. Such is but one more reason for my belief that righteous protests against this deplorable ruling are better suitedat the Supreme Court building, where there is ample security for all of our sitting justices. (Nota Bene: Yesterday, the U.S. Senate voted to extend personal security to each of the Supreme Court justices in the wake of recent protests).

To conclude, neither of the major news events have led to any broken laws by the media or individual protesters, but I remind that the rights listed within the First Amendment are wonderful when they work to form a better informed citizenry, while the same can be wonderfully problematic when said information leads to protracted war abroador wanton violence at home.

Thank you and please subscribe to the Hobbservation Pointhave a wonderful Tuesday!

Chuck Hobbs is a freelance journalist who won the 2010 Florida Bar Media Award and has been twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

See the article here:
The benefits and burdens of the First Amendment - Insight News