On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:16:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
by the current administration.


What rights "granted under the Constitution" are being trampled here?


Here, none yet. But if Churchill is dismissed by his employer for
what he wrote, that would appear to be a breach of his 1st amendment
right.

The current administration's enactment of the Patriot Act suspends a
citizen's right to due legal process.

....



After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
the truth.


What noble journalists?


Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper:

http://www.observer.com/pages/offtherec.asp
The Times and Time Reporters to go to the Supremes
by Tom Scocca

The latest turn in the First Amendment martyrdom of Time’s Matthew
Cooper and The New York Times’ Judith Miller was underdramatic. On
Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia posted an 83-page decision online rejecting Mr. Cooper
and Ms. Miller’s claims that they were not bound to give up
confidential sources to a grand jury. The failed appeal left the
two reporters on the hook for contempt—for refusing to cooperate
with the investigation into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie
Plame’s identity to the press—and one step closer to jail, though
still free pending their next appeal.

...



Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
is ours.


I'd prefer a free, objective press.


It's difficult to insure an objective press, but freedom of the press
is fundamental in a free society. And it would appear that there is
no Constitutional necessity for an objective press despite it's
desirability.



Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
disparate opinions?


The Constitution HAS become meaningless and Churchill had nothing to do with
it.


Perhaps. But I have successfully won legal cases on Constitutional
grounds, so I wouldn't characterize the Constitution as entirely
meaningless.



If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
Bush" for what he said:


What 1st Amendment right is being denied to Churchill?


My statement was in the subjunctive tense.