#ConcernedStudent1950 Did not Violate the First Amendment
The US Constitution is obsolete; the sooner working-class people understand that, the better. This has been addressed before on Thoughts Plural, but given some recent cries about First Amendment violations, I think it bears repeating.
In the wake of the recent victory by ConcernedStudent1950 in Missouri, protesters refused to allow mainstream media (MSM) access to their organizing space. And what would seem like a benign request, fairly easy to respect has instead grown into its own divisive narrative. Reporters, journalists and other offended parties have leveled accusations of censorship and even claimed to have had their "First Amendment rights" violated.
Among other things, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects speech and assembly from government infringement. Keyword: government. If a State employee or agency were at work here, then those barred from access would have a legitimate grievance. But the student protesters on the University of Missouri campus are not government actors. Hence, no constitutional violation. Same goes for gun-free zones. As repugnant as it may be, when a privately-owned establishment bars gun possession on their premises, that is not a violation of the Second Amendment.
The fact that the national media considers themselves automatically authorized to enter into the living, working, organizing and otherwise safe spaces of private citizens is striking. Media access is not guaranteed; just as journalists have a right to request it, activists have an equal right to deny it. And who can blame them for exercising said denial? Not long ago and not far from the UM campus, the mainstream media spun stories, twisted narratives and outright lied about events in Ferguson, MO. So for seeking to safeguard their space and story, the folks of ConcernedStudent1950 are to be commended, not condemned.
In actuality, these claims of constitutional infringement are just as laughable as they are inaccurate. For the very institution (the US federal government) that owes its existence to that centuries-old document is also its most egregious violator. When those obligated – by oath and by law – to support and defend the Constitution are the main ones trampling it, I think its obsolescence is quite clear. Just as ridiculous are the MSM's claims of unfair treatment. Access denial should be an expected response to unscrupulous coverage detrimental to a particular group of people. Plus which, social media and citizen journalism have proven well-capable of informing folks. At this point, there’s got be nothing more extraneous to a free-thinking human being than the mainstream media. Except for, of course, the US Constitution.
