While teaching on Aristotle in my ethics class last week, I noted that not unlike his contemporaries or his medieval successors, the great philosopher was a \u201cteleologist.\u201d\u00a0 A teleologist is simply one who thinks that everything in the world has an essential purpose that makes it the kind of thing that it is.\u00a0 This is what most people held up until the advent of modern science. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
An astute student then attempted to tie Aristotle\u2019s analysis into the current debate over the Second Amendment. He observed that those who favor ever more oppressive restrictions on the Second Amendment\u2014the proponents of \u201cgun control\u201d\u2014sound very much like teleologists when it comes to guns.\u00a0 Guns kill, we are told.\u00a0 This is their purpose<\/em>.<\/p>\n That cars, knives, fists, and many other things other than guns also kill is neither here nor there for Second Amendment deniers. Cars, say, aren\u2019t meant <\/em>to kill.\u00a0 Guns are.<\/p>\n My student was correct. When it comes to guns, the enemies of the Second Amendment do indeed speak as if they were teleologists.\u00a0 Forget that when it comes to almost everything else, their teleology goes out the window.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s play along and see whether these cafeteria teleologists are willing to follow their reasoning to its logical term.<\/p>\n The purpose of a free press is to safeguard our liberty against corruption.\u00a0 Those who rely upon the First <\/em>Amendment to peddle their wares in the media can constitutionally justify their existence by alluding to this purpose.\u00a0 Without our media \u201cwatchdogs,\u201d we are lead to think, those in power\u2014those in government, <\/em>particularly\u2014could all too easily trample our liberties under foot.<\/p>\n A free press\u00a0is what separates liberty from tyranny, citizens from subjects or slaves.<\/p>\n If this is so, however, then it is not unreasonable to think that if those in the media are not <\/em>doing their job, if they are not serving as watchdogs, then maybe they should no longer be permitted to hide behind the First Amendment.<\/p>\n And they are not <\/em>doing their job.\u00a0<\/p>\n Journalists and pundits in publishing and broadcasting far too often protect, not the liberties<\/em> that government office holders are busy away eroding, but the government office holders<\/em> themselves. In exchange for access to politicians, the tireless champions of the press\u2019s sacred right to freedom of speech reduce themselves to public relations tools for these same politicians.<\/p>\n So, this being the case, we should ask of the\u00a0First Amendment absolutists: Do\u00a0they really need <\/em>freedom of the press?\u00a0<\/p>\n If we are in turn accused of wanting to repeal the First Amendment, or at least that part of it that guarantees freedom of the press, we should deny the charge: No one is talking repeal here, we must insist. Rather, we are only talking about “common sense” restrictions <\/em>or regulations.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n Those in the press can maintain their freedom of speech\u2014but only if they really need <\/em>it. \u00a0\u00a0<\/em>That is, if they are exposing or otherwise challenging those in government\u2014and not acting as their propagandists\u2014then and only then should they be free to continue doing so.\u00a0 However, freedom of the press will not extend to those media figures intent upon serving as apologists for the powerful.\u00a0<\/p>\n To make sure that we apply the First Amendment in a \u201ccommon sense\u201d way, those who own and manage media organizations\u2014and possibly those in their employment\u2014should be required to submit their coverage of the events and people of the day every so often to a bi-partisan, independent Congressional commission. \u00a0<\/p>\n If it is established that their networks and publications have taken an insufficiently adversarial stance toward the government, then a penalty will be leveled.\u00a0 This is what will happen the first time around.\u00a0 If it is subsequently discovered that those who are supposed to be pit bulls are actually poodles, then their business will be extinguished.<\/p>\n The First Amendment is not violated here, we can remind our critics. Quite the contrary, in fact, for these \u201ccommon sense\u201d restrictions will preserve and strengthen it. They will make sure that its purpose is fulfilled.<\/p>\n Somehow, I doubt very much that those who are all too eager to apply these arguments to the Second Amendment will be so eager to accept them when it comes to the First Amendment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While teaching on Aristotle in my ethics class last week, I noted that not unlike his contemporaries or his medieval successors, the great philosopher was a \u201cteleologist.\u201d\u00a0 A teleologist is simply one who thinks that everything in the world has an essential purpose that makes it the kind of thing that it is.\u00a0 This is…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-745","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n