> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does I'm sure if you thought through the implications of removing Co

> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does I'm sure if you thought through the implications of removing Constitutionally recognized, inalienable rights, you wouldn't say this. Let's assume it is done, the press is now stripped of its rights, and ask some questions about the world and political reality thereupon: Do individuals still have this right to free speech or is it only media that no longer does? Does an individual who becomes a journalist still have the right to free speech? Who would oversee the speech of journalists? Would it be you or right-thinking people like you who decide what is acceptable for the media to say? Or would it be whichever political party were in power at the time? Or billionaire oligarchs? How would this oversight work? A "free speech oversight" committee? How does one get into the committee? Appointment? By whom? Election? If I want to run for election in the committee, can I say unpleasant things about my incumbent opponents? Or will the committee declare this speech to be out of bounds? What if they become corrupt? Who can report the truth about that corruption? If I dislike the committee for some reason, can the committee oversee my criticism, declare it out of bounds? Could the legal precedence of overriding the inalienable right to free speech also be used to override other inalienable rights? My right not to have to barracks soldiers in my house, for instance.