Media bias is an abuse of the right of "free" speech

Any right can be abused. How do we usually prevent that? With limitations, right?

We can't shout "fire" in a theater. Or say, "Hi, Jack," in an airport. Libel is prosecutable, slander ditto. Restrictions on "free speech" are not hard to find.

We do have a right to bear arms, but it can be limited and regulated. No machine-guns. No "assault weapons." Magazine-size limits, gun-composition restrictions, ammo restrictions. No problem.

Illegal search and seizure. Yep, but with warrants and evidence, there is no guarantee against any search or seizure. And there's always "probable cause," and "imminent danger."

My point is, rights come with both responsibilities and restrictions, not to mention exceptions. It's hardly a new concept.

So, let's examine the "right" of free speech. In particular, the "rights" of "the press."

The press considers their "right" to be supreme and sacrosanct. An unfettered press is acknowledged by all as a necessity in a free and open country. A true democratic form of government can't survive without one, quite frankly. But what is the solution when the press intentionally distorts the truth? What is the effect when "propaganda" is pushed by the very organ that lays claim to maintaining a "free and fair" marketplace of ideas? Is this not an abuse of this "right?" Is this not shirking the "responsibility" that we expect from, say, gun-owners when exercising their "rights?"

Now, we have alternatives to what's become known as the "main-stream media," the internet being the most popular and effective. BUT, the mere fact that libel or slander can be countered does not mean that it does no harm. Proof of libel or slander is actionable in court, for the purpose of clearing one's name, and assessing damages from this abuse. So, what should be the response to blatant, purposeful attempts to sway the very basis of our government through lies, slander, libel, et al? Is this not election tampering? Election fraud? Fraud of some sort? Sedition? Treason?

Okay, boycott the media, boycott advertisers, etc. But, what is the LEGAL ramifications of this abuse of a "right?" The "fire in a theater" scenario includes arrest and prosecution. It's not a case of "oh, there's no fire, so it's okay." Same with violating gun laws. The Second Amendment is not a blanket for violating any gun restriction you like without any consequences, regardless of actual harm done. This isn't a basketball game, there's no "no harm, no foul" rule in effect here.

So, what can be done, legally and Constitutionally, to try to reign in private organizations (media) that attempt, through subterfuge and plain old lies, to undermine the basis of the legal means of governing this country? Seems to me that's a lot more of a threat to America than whether your pistol holds 10 or 11 rounds of ammunition.

Now, lest anyone be worried about the "jack-booted brown-shirts," if I thought it was that simple, I'd merely advocate for that. BUT, after seeing the response of the MSM when they are caught to the point of having to print a retraction, and it's buried on page G-27, a thought occurs: is there a way to make them print all retractions on the front page, with suitable mea culpas? Sure, it would be an "imposition." Good, that should give them a reason to be accurate and careful in the first place. Maybe we need to get beyond the knee-jerk revulsion of the idea of dictating anything to "the press." Everyone else is "dictated" to, in one way or another.

That's merely a thought that just occurred to me. But I think exploring this concept of press accountability may be interesting.

Here's are the premises I'm starting from, in a nutshell:

• Limiting and restricting rights is not a new or unusual idea. It is regularly done for the common good.
• Irresponsible exercising of rights can cause harm.
• Intentional harm to our system of government is something that is rightfully frowned upon.
• Can anything be done to make those charged with controlling our information more accountable from a legal, not economic, standpoint?

Maybe nothing can be done. Maybe I'm just whistling in the wind. But maybe a little "outside the box" thinking will get some ideas flowing. It may be an interesting mental exercise, anyway.