4 Journalists Who Only Like One Part of the First Amendment

The First Amendment guarantees several rights to American citizens, two of which are freedom of the press and freedom to peaceably assemble. Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri have highlighted the threats to both of these supposed rights, with police attempting to shut down reporters and protesters simultaneously.

Unfortunately, it seems like many reporters never bothered to finish reading the First Amendment: plenty of journalists like to use broad strokes to paint protesters as fools and discredit their efforts. Here are journalists who benefit from press freedoms, but dismiss the right to assemble:

1. Greg Gutfeld, Fox News

Pundit Gutfeld has had some pretty outrageous things to say about the Ferguson situation this week. In addition to firming up an unfair association of protesters with rioters and looters, Gutfeld alleged that protesters were only participating in the first place because it seemed like the “cool” thing to do. By labeling protesting some kind of “fad,” he’s conveniently ignoring a long history of oppression in the community and eliminating the notion that Ferguson residents might have legitimate grievances.

Fortunately, we have people like Russell Brand who are happy to take down Gutfeld point by point. He rightfully calls out his complete lack of empathy and laughs at Gutfeld’s own claim that Americans should be cheering for Goliath (the police) rather than David (the protesters).

2. Rosemary Church, CNN

Church probably thought she was being generous when she made a suggestion on how the police should handle Ferguson protesters: “Why the use of tear gas, stun grenades? Why not perhaps use water cannons?”

Why not? For starters, water cannons are just as violent as the other forms of protest suppression, and the pressure of the water alone caused significant bodily harm to Civil Rights demonstrators of generations past. Church’s co-anchor, Errol Barnett — who probably has a better knowledge of this madness – gave her a quick distressed look at the mention of water cannons.

We’ll chalk some of Church’s comment up to ignorance, but if she really had any respect for the protesters’ right to assemble, she wouldn’t call for police force to be used against them at all.

3. Alison Kosik, CNN

Just before heading over to cover the Occupy protests a few years ago, reporter Kosik tweeted some unflattering opinions about the protesters. In addition to writing that Occupiers’ “list of whines was too long,” she claimed that the purpose of the protest was to “bang on the bongos, smoke weed!”

While it shows a lack in journalistic integrity to put these biases on display before even visiting the protesters, it also illustrates her general contempt for people exercising their First Amendment rights.

4. Joe Scarborough, MSNBC

Then there are some special journalists who don’t have much respect for even the press freedom portion of the First Amendment. On his show Morning Joe, Scarborough denounced journalists who had been targeted in Ferguson, putting the blame on the reporters for getting arrested in the first place.

After insisting that he would listen to a police officer’s orders no matter what, Scarborough alleged that the arrested journalists just “wanted to get on TV.” At a time when reporters around the world are decrying the Ferguson police for stifling, threatening and even attacking reporters, Scarborough sides with the police in ignoring press freedoms.

One arrested reporter, Wesley Lowery, subsequently criticized Scarborough for pretending to know anything about the situation when he was supposedly “reporting” on the situation from a cushy studio hundreds of miles away.


Jim Ven
Jim Ven1 years ago

thanks for the article.

Danuta Watola
Danuta W3 years ago

Thanks for sharing

Steven Gregory Davis

@Will R...WOW, that was an incredibly beautiful REBUTTAL...Kudos to you, my friend!!!
I'd love to give you more, but unfortunately we are limited to one star/hour!!!

Will Rogers
Will Rogers3 years ago

Don V is crayzeeeeeeee!! Wow! It's very interesting to see the mind of a psychopath at work, all the disjointed thoughts at play, the wild misguided conclusions, the passion and the jingoistic patriotism of the xenophobic mind, the fantasy that America is number 1 and the accompanying superiority complex that stems from gun culture, and the despair of knowing that in the future a multicultural world is INEVITABLE.
Fear is a crippling syndrome, as is its kin, paranoia.
Don V. Your type of paranoia and fear is the problem, American blacks are still being oppressed under some weird kind of secret/public agenda that they must find very frustrating. I doubt that you are trying to help them in their fight against white terror, because that's what it is....Terrorism. And never has the adage "...if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem." been so accurate.

Steven Gregory Davis

@John B. You claim that the Democrats want to do away with both the 1st and 2nd amendments...To tell you truth, if it weren't for the Democrats, the 1st amendment would have been done away with long ago!!!...AND as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, they are simply trying to limit the possession of ASSAULT RIFLES, which lots of RIGHT WING MORON TEA-BAGGERS think they need in order to feel safe...Even when attending church or eating in a restaurant...and they feel their very best when they are holding the BIBLE in one hand and a 357 magnum in the other!!!!

Steven Gregory Davis

@Don V. What in the world is your PROBLEM???...I have read your insane RANTING, and really have NO idea as to what you are trying to accomplish!!!...The best I can come up with is, that you want to let all Care2 members know that in your opinion EVERYONE who isn't an ultra right wing MANIAC, is by definition a TERRORIST???...If I have misunderstood your impeccable LOGIC, please feel free to "straighten me out"!!!

Joseph Glackin
Joseph Glackin3 years ago

Don V.~~

Lay off the meth.

Robert Hamm
Robert Hamm3 years ago

NO democrat wants to limit the 1st ammendment. WE simply laugh at misguided thinkers. No one is trying to eliminate the ability to arm yourself either. WE want you armed RESPONSIBLY. You don’t NEED a bazooka or a tank or an assult rifle.

This article PURPOSEFULLY showed both liberal stations and conservative ones are guilty. How did this get construed to be "liberals suck and want to take all our freedoms away???” Libwerals have been here since the country began….in basically the same number they always have been. WE imported the system from Europe has has basically the same set up. Liberals sit right next to you in church and fight in wars right next to you. We like all the freedoms YOU do…..in fact we like even MORE freedom than most conservatives do. WE simply dont like to be abused by people in power in either the government or the business world……or the religious world.

John Browning
John Browning3 years ago

As bad as these reporters may be do you want to know what is far more damaging? An entire party (Democrats) wanting to limit the 1st amendment in addition to the 2nd along with any others amendments they won't admit that they secretly want gone as well. Even though the reporters are wrong as well, THEY ARE NOT OFFICIALS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, sworn by an oath to serve the people and uphold the constitution. That means upholding even the parts they don't like and that don't fit their Utopian fantasy. I am not a Republican but it is obvious that Democrats are every bit as dangerous to the preservation of US citizens rights as the Republicans are. Both Parties have their own agendas for whittling away the protection of The Bill of Rights among others. To claim otherwise is to live in denial.

Don Vreeland
Don Vreeland3 years ago

(digress: WWIII started November 4, 1979, when EXTREMIST Iranian Moslems invaded SOVERIGN U. S. Soil, an act of war. We R NOT at war with Moslems and they R'nt even 5% terrorist. E. G. There RN'T 9 MILLION S. E. PACIFIC MOSLEM TERRORIST - Malaysian, Phillipine, Indonesian, etc, a population of over 300 million MOSLEMS)