Is the First Amendment Under Attack?

I want to clearly label this post in my blog. This is my OPINION! Let’s not get it confused with news. My hope is to lay out some factual arguments for why my opinion should be valued, but I’m not going to pretend that this post adheres to the rigorous standards quality journalism, which is a cornerstone of our democracy, applies to the reporting of actual news. I woke up today to the news that Julian Assange was arrested. First, let me make clear, I do not consider Mr. Assange, the co-founder of WikiLeaks either a hero or a villain. Rather, he is a symbol. For the last seven years he has avoided Swedish authorities by seeking refuge in the Ecuadoran embassy in London. As best as I can tell, the Swedish government is no longer pursuing charges against Assange, nor is the Ecuadoran government willing to provide him refuge. The claim is he violated the rules they set for his behavior as a guest of the embassy. Scotland Yard carried him out of the embassy based on a warrant from the U.S. government. He will undoubtedly fight extradition, but most likely he will stand trial in the country with the longest history for the protection of free speech. For those of us who recall our high school social studies classes we may remember the Founding Fathers felt it necessary to add ten amendments to the Constitution, which we’ve all come to refer to as the Bill of Rights. Ten days from now will mark the tenth anniversary of what I view as the move to reorder those amendments. Stop scratching your heads. On April 20, 1999, the first mass shooting at a high school in Columbine, Colorado took place. The next day, gun rights advocates demanded protection of their second amendment rights. The National Rifle Association, an organization responsible for awarding me three medals for target shooting when I earned my Boy Scout merit badge for marksmanship, went on the offensive. Now, I don’t have a problem with properly trained people owning firearms. I do have a problem with the types of firearms permitted, but that’s a debate for another time. My point is there was a reason the Founding Fathers numbered the Bill of Rights the way they did. It’s one of the few things Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton agreed upon–yes there were political differences back then, too. They believed the first and most important right is the right to free speech. The right to bear arms, whether for a militia, or otherwise, came in second. Words penetrate deeper and last longer than the scars of weapons. During the decade long campaign to get the American people to value their right to bear arms more than free speech, there was no concerted effort to attack free speech. That is, until Our Fearless Leader took over two years ago. His constant attack on the press pretends to be out of concern for the common citizen. He calls the press fake and phony. He even went so far as to make fun of a reporter because of a physical disability. At the same time, Our Fearless Leader wants us to believe his Twitter account is the legitimate news. I’ve got news, it’s not–it’s his OPINION! Sure, the press gets it wrong on occasion. There is no doubt there is bias. It is not rational, nor reasonable to think anyone can be objective about all things at all times. However, the legitimate press, a large portion of which is referred to as “mainstream media” subscribes to extremely high standards. Multiple sources and verification are hallmarks of every journalism school in this country. As is, the search for truth. There are no such criteria attached to Mr. Assange’s leaks or to Our Fearless Leader’s tweets. Rather, they are symbols of the world in which we find ourselves. Like Daniel Ellsberg, I believe Julian Assange and Edward Snowden should be held accountable for their actions. Ellsberg faced the consequences and the world is a better place because of it. I just wish Our Fearless leader was held to the same high standard.