Why Not The First?

The Rights in The Bill of Rights of The Constitution of the United States were supposed to be absolute. That's why there's language in it such as "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law".

And, yet, the Left has been infringing upon the 2nd Amendment (among others) for years and they never stop trying to infringe upon that right even more. So why can't the 1st Amendment be infringed upon, too?

When the Constitution was written, a free press was envisioned as one of the checks to government. The press was supposed to be a watchdog, keeping the government as honest as possible. I wonder if the Founders ever imagined that the press would eventually have a huge hand in enabling an ever-bigger government, the vast majority of whose acts are unconstitutional.

If the Left infringes upon our 2nd amendment rights, I say it's about time that we infringe upon the press' 1st amendment rights. After all, they're taking rights away from us, even though we've done nothing wrong. When you consider the damage that has been done by the traitorous scum in the "mainstream media", this would be the very least we could do to them. Hanging from light poles would be more fitting for a lot of them.

So my proposal is simple: If you're an organization that disseminates news, and you want to insist that you're unbiased, then you cheer for/attack both sides, Left and Right in approximate equal measure. You also hire an approximate number of "journalists" from both sides (since there really are no "moderates" in the game anymore, we can skip that part).

The alternative is to state your bias upfront or be shut down.

To those of us on the Right, it really wouldn't matter. Our news sources proudly state their bias. The only one who doesn't is Fox, but I doubt that they'd have a problem declaring themselves as being to the right.

But the Leftist press organizations always insist that they're not biased, no matter how obviously far left they are. They have to. If they were to come out and tell the people that they sought the destruction of this country, they'd be hung from the aforementioned light poles.

Yes, it sounds a lot like the "Fairness Doctrine", The difference is that, under the "Fairness Doctrine", left-wing news outlets were never penalized, no matter how much they rooted for the Communists of the world, while the few right-wing news outlets were scrutinized with a microscope. This would hold the Left to account as well.

Is it censorship? Yep. But if they can keep me from my basic, fundamental right of defending my life and my family's life, I don't see a problem in forcing them to actually just tell the truth about who they are. That would be pretty insignificant by comparison.

If "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean what it says, why should "shall make no law" mean what it says?