The jurisprudence of the first amendment already makes many distinctions that are not there in the text of the amendment itself. This is inevitable - rights con

The jurisprudence of the first amendment already makes many distinctions that are not there in the text of the amendment itself. This is inevitable - rights conflict with other rights and even with the same right as exercised by someone else. > why is the impasse "pathological"? Are you just throwing in a pejorative term? The current jurisprudence is a pathlogical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case) interpretation that clamps the solution space to maximal commercial/corporate rights at the expense of individual rights. The example of the press is actually quite poignant. The current legal regime neuters the free speech rights of most of the press. People can be fired for writing articles saying things their employer does not want to be said. They can even be fired for saying things in their own personal time that their employer does not want to be said! The end result is greatly diminished rights for the individuals making up the press, in order to support greatly increased rights for the controlling owners of the press.