Fourth Estate, the fourth branch of government

Yep, you probably know about Ron Paul, congressman from Texas. Conservative as they come, but he deplores the Patriot Act for the same reason I do.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul114.html

Please Lord, don't let there be a libertarian somewhere who likes it...

 

I don't think you have too much to fear on that count.

I count myself strongly libertarian on economics, but a social, Constitutional (though Ron Paul and I would probably disagree on that) and defense conservative.

 

Thank God you don't get to decide.

[quoite]Now what is different from that free speech and saying that I am ashamed that such trash came from Texas?[/quote]

Nothing at all, except that they did it overseas, which I find objectionable. But guess what? Even if you did it overseas, or lied about it, you still don't go to jail. That "loophole", as you call it, protects you as well as them.

The law applies equally to all. That's in the Constitution, too. From time to time, it infuriates all of us. But it's the way it should be.

 

Well, let's see who did that...

El Guero says, regarding the First Amendment:

Imagine that.

 

Actually, YOU are the one who called freedom of the press a loophole. May I ask why you would say such a thing, refuse to defend it, and then accuse everyone else of saying it?

 

Lagardo, sadly this is EG's common tactic...to say something totally off the wall, then accuse everyone else of saying it. Trouble with that is, this is not like a verbal debate. There is a written record for all to see.

EG, the only person I see calling our First Amendment a "loophole" is you. I understand why a dictator would feel that way, but our founders knew that protection of these liberties from potential government abuses, was necessary to maintain a free and democratic republic.

 

EG,

How would you punish the press for lying and under what law? Or is your argument that "there oughta be a law"?

 

And why did you call the freedom of the press a "loophole?"

 

Actually, the framers of the constitution did not impose any rights, but rather acknowledged our God-given rights.

I am very serious about the first amendment and would really like to see you address why you choose to call them "loopholes."

I'm also curious to see if you stating something so outrageous then accusing others of saying it, all the while, never defending your own statment is a common tactic, or if you willa ctually defend your statement here

 

Is this your way of saying that you will not defend your statement?

 

EG,

Are you talking about seditious libel? I don't remember that much about it, except that, IIRC, it was a doctrine from England that the Founders rejected.

.

Actually, many don't realize that there are already limits on the press in violation of national security (that preceded the PATRIOT Act). I didn't keep up with the Wilson/Plame affair but I do know that the person I was most upset with was one of my conservative heroes, Robert Novak, for letting out that secret, IIRC.

Actually, it's not the job of a free press to protect the country. It so happens that, with some restraint on their part, they can assist the government in carrying out that function of government. But a free press, "running off at the mouth" is nothing new. The press bedeviled King George, George Washington, certainly John Adams, and probably every President in our history. But scandals, lies, and yellow journalism are the dark side of a free press. We shouldn't reject a free press just because it's not all we want it to be, though.

 

Here we go again...the ad hominems begin when pressed to defend an off-the-wall statement.