Scott V. Cooper: Future freedoms

January 5, 2013 

Future freedoms

I always smile when folks who do not quite qualify as Supreme Court justices begin to selectively dissect our Constitution, imposing their personal interpretation of what different amendments really mean. Such rigorous academic exercises seem to be limited almost exclusively to our Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The Dec. 28 letter “Bear these arms” espoused the belief that, because the framers of our Constitution could not possibly have envisioned “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines” back in 1791, these weapons should clearly be banned. Nice logic, so let’s continue down this path. Following this line of reasoning, I assume the letter-writer and his like-minded friends also support the notion that Freedom of the Press, as found in the First Amendment, applies only to newspapers and printed periodicals, specifically those produced with a quill pen or on paper made from rags.

As our founders could not have possibly foreseen the motion picture industry, television or the Internet in the 18th century, Freedom of the Press as found in the First Amendment should not apply to these. Obviously, we need more stringent government intervention, similar to that found in North Korea and China, to suppress such free expression of thoughts and ideas. Sound good?

Scott V. Cooper


News & Observer is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service