The media keeps digging a hole, and trying to drag America down with it. In a desperate effort to recast a recent event as simply a test of “freedom of the press,” news giants are ignoring First Amendment issues at stake — ones that affect all of us.
To see the big picture, we need to take a step back. So in the latest episode, I transport us to a seminal moment for freedom of expression, nearly 50 years ago.
The issue began in a Chicago suburb, and made it all the way to the Supreme Court. “In 1977, a small group of neo-Nazis sought permission to march in Skokie, which at the time had the highest percentage of Holocaust survivors of any community in America,” Chicago public television station WTTW reported. “Skokie fought back, leading to a lengthy and complicated legal drama that tested the limits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech.”
The case became a watershed moment for the First Amendment. The ACLU supported the Nazis in their right to protest. They didn’t end up marching in Skokie, but the courts ruled that they were allowed to.
The big message was that in America, we all have to follow the same laws and have the same rights and freedoms, no matter how awful some people are. If you and I can march, Nazis can march.
This is why I’ve been emphasizing what the media refuses to acknowledge about protesters who disrupted a Minneapolis-St. Paul church service because an assistant pastor works for ICE. Parishioners share harrowing stories in the affidavit here.
If these protesters can do this, then so can Nazis — whether white supremacist Nazis at a Black church or Islamist Nazis at a synagogue. (If you’re new to They Stand Corrected, listen to learn the giant differences between Muslim and Islamist, and the history of Islamists as part of the Nazi movement, allied with Hitler.)
Rule of Law vs. Rule of Likes
The FACE Act makes clear that Americans have a First Amendment right to pray in a religious institution without certain kinds of interference. We also have certain constitutional rights to privacy. If a group you like can violate any of these rights, then so can hate groups.
The same goes for the media’s blind backing of self-declared “journalist” Don Lemon. He described the group planning the church intrusion as “we,” saying, “After we do this operation, you’ll see it live.” Once inside the church, he praised and celebrated the participants, and broadcast live video from the scene — including showing minors — without permission.
The media rushed to his defense. Meanwhile, in this episode, I point out that some self-declared “journalists” took video during the January 6 , 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and cheered on non-violent actions. (To be clear, there was violence that day, but not committed by every participant.)
News giants rejected the concept of defending these so-called “journalists.” Of course, the solution is not to automatically defend them. The solution is for the media to recognize reality: In a democracy, the same rules must apply to everyone, including those you can’t stand.
Legacy media is doing what Trump does: ignoring the basic principle that everyone is subject to the same rules. It has recast itself as a force against Trump. What it should be is a crucial pillar of democracy.
Also in this episode:
This story and the so-called “apology” from Kanye have something big in common
The dangerous, misguided argument Big Media is using to try to defend Lemon
A federal prosecutor corrects CNN live on air
and more.
Episodes are free and available to all. Paid subscribers: You have edited, hyperlinked episode transcripts coming. And you can comment or message me here with feedback or questions.
JL
P.S. On Instagram? Join me:
Two overlong rambling notes on "the same rules must apply to everyone" vs the too-common knee-jerk "when my side does it, it's different":
>Jan 6 "journalists"--I remember John Earle Sullivan being credulously interviewed in the days after, while I was grinding my teeth at his obviously phony story. So in at least one case, an initial affinity for the "journalist" label made some turn off their critical thinking and legal analysis entirely. But that didn't last long--and as you note, most news sources had no trouble realizing then that the journalist label is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Several of those self-declared Jan 6 "journalists" were later prosecuted for their actions. (Also, a dozen or more journalists doing actual journalism were assaulted that day.) John Earle Sullivan AKA Jayden X, was charged, convicted, and sentenced to six years. Jade Sacker accompanied him in the Capitol attack but was not charged, since she was actually making a documentary and not a planner/participant. A literally side-by-side comparison of what they do vs what they call themselves.
>The FACE Act--I know a guy who volunteered as a clinic escort circa 1990, pre-FACE Act. They needed big tall guys who could form a human wall to absorb the blows from the Operation Rescue protesters. Literal blows--punches and worse (one charming protester was known as "the tit-twister" for her favorite way to assault women). They couldn't so much as raise their arms to ward off the attacks or the local police would arrest them (the clinic protectors, not the attackers) for assault (the local chief was a big Operation Rescue supporter).
That's just an anecdotal example of how "my side is noble" can even distort law enforcement--exactly why protections needed to be codified around access to reproductive health clinics and houses of worship. Not "obstruction, threats, and attacks are usually bad but if I really like your cause..."