According to the the Constitution: Congress shall make NO LAW (emphasis mine) abridging the right of free speech...or the free excercise thereof. *
(Unless you are under 18 and attend school)
Free speech for those with money.
Media costs a lot these days. Try excercising your right to freedom of the press, and see if anyone pays attention.
Then, there's the Quad City Times. A bastian of unbiased press.
From the Editor's blog:
Our policy starts off with the following: “Our journalistic ethics are treasured and should be above reproach. We must maintain our independence and avoid conflicts of interest to safeguard the public’s trust in us. That is why newspapers are given special constitutional freedoms.”
To me, these aren’t shallow words. I believe them and Suggested headline: Journalists and political donations don’t mix.
Journalists and political donations don't mix, eh? What about the owners? Can they donate to politicians? I asked, and have not received a reply.
What does it matter if individual journalists can't express their political leanings if the paper's owners are free to? What conflict of interest does that reflect? What if the paper's columnists are bought off by the government (as has happened)? What if news and advertising are subtly blended? Is that ethical?
What about civic boosterism? Maybe in order to get an unbiased view of the community we should only hire journalists from India.
Freedom of speech for them who can afford it, and who can pay to silence those they please.