Biden Funds the Media

Steven Chase

It really takes balls to openly pay bribes to the Media industry for favorable political coverage. Breathless corruption.

Tim adds:

I would add this is probably unconstitutional. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law Congress Shall Make No Law... respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." This both establishes a press and abridges free speech by empowering only some approved voices. There is a reason why America never had a BBC. If you subsidize something you by default abridge it's competitor. As Warren Burger said in Wooley v. Maynard 19777

"The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind."

Funding certain media outlets is essentially compelled speech. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speech

From the article:

The compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression. Thus, the First Amendment not only limits the government from punishing a person for his speech, it also prevents the government from punishing a person for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government’s approved messages.

The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) is the classic example of the compelled speech doctrine at work.

In this case, the Court ruled that a state cannot force children to stand, salute the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The justices held that school children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, for religious reasons, had a First Amendment right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the U.S. flag.

In oft-cited language, Justice Robert H. Jackson asserted, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

More recently, in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006), Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. reiterated the essence of the compelled speech principle: "Some of this Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”

The Court also employed the compelled speech doctrine in Wooley v. Maynard (1977) to rule that state officials could not punish a man for covering the state’s motto — "Live Free or Die” — on his license plate. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger declared, "The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.’ ”

In more recent years, the Court recognized the reach of the compelled speech principle in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), in which it ruled that government officials could not force parade organizers to accept a gay and lesbian group and its messages as part of its event. To do so would infringe on the private group’s autonomy and right to disseminate its own messages.
Can government force groups to financially support certain programs?

The compelled speech principle also is at issue when the government attempts to force individuals or groups to financially support certain messages or programs. The Court refers to these as compelled-subsidy cases.

In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), the Court ruled that a teachers’ union had no authority, consistent with the First Amendment, to force dissenting nonmembers to fund activities not germane to the union’s central purpose of collective bargaining.

In a similar vein, in Keller v. State Bar of California (1990), the Court ruled that California’s state bar could not force attorneys to contribute to certain political and ideological causes that it supported. "Compulsory dues may not be expended to endorse or advance a gun control or nuclear weapons freeze initiative,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the Court. He added, "At the other end of the spectrum petitioners have no valid constitutional objection to their compulsory dues being spent for activities connected with disciplining members of the Bar or proposing ethical codes for the profession.”

End excerpt.

This is forcing America to fund speech.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:49 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 6 kb.