BREAKING NEWS: Stephen A. Smith Hates The First Amendment

I'm convinced that even if he wasn't in the sports talk radio industry, he'd still be an obnoxious jerk.

I'm sure that's true.

Wow, I have many times disagreed with your viewpoints but you hit this one outta the park! The part about the 1st amendment especially; are we so iggnorant as a group of citzens that we have no idea what our rights actually are? It seems like people are so quick to pull out a consititutional amendment but it's rare they actually know what the amendment states. Do we need to insert the consititution into our wiki so that people can reference it properly?

SAS is loud, he's opinionated, he pronouces things funny and he's kinda obnoxious, but he'll be the first to defend the 1st amendment. No one wants congress to be able to dictate your ability to express thought, but that's what people are accused off all the time, let me list for you a few people who have been accused of wanting congress to censor free thought here on ArmchairGM:

Jamel Tyrone Briggs Manny Stiles MetsJetsDevils F.P.

Others, and now go ol Mr. Smith. My only complaint is if your gonna cite the consititution and attack people with it, know the weapon your using, and know how to use it, otherwise you are the one looking like a fool.

Thanks, LA. And sadly, no, I don't think that we do understand what our rights are. It's like the people who act like you must be some kind of doped-up imbecile if you don't understand that the Second Amendment, the simplest of all amendments, grants the absolute right to keep and bear arms, yet do not know that the first words of the amendment are, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

We, as a people, really do not have a very good grasp of our rights and freedoms, and this article is a perfect example. I don't have a beef with your opinion, but the author is flat-out wrong to act as though the First Amendment grants everyone the right to say anything in any medium with only the caveat that it not be slanderous or libelous. If only the world were so simple.

Woe, woe, woe LA - when was I accused of what now? Don't lump me in there, buddy. I don't normally join the politics debates on a Sports website. Check the transcripts, I'm not a repressor of free thought - a crusher of moronic and idiotic thought maybe, but free thinkers are ALWAYS welcomed (especially when I don't agree with them!).

I honestly don't care what anyone says as long as it ain't about my wife or kids - My Mom is fair game, of course...

I choose to use my freedom of not listening more often than my freedom of bitching about other people... I have better things to worry about than other people and what they say.

People have the right to publish what they like. The 1st amendment doesn't guarantee an outlet for publication, but as the Internet exists the outlet can not be denied. I know that people can write hurtful, scandalous and untrue things but the fact remains it is down to the reader to first access the article, read it, believe it and share it.

couple of thoughts here...

1) Aswaff is sorta right about the 2nd amendment...namely its be often debated what it actually means...some suggest that a right to bear arms is mearly a caveat of a well regulated militia...while others thing that the phrase is in and of itself. As a strict constructionist, one could see this is relating to the militia, however I see it merely as a reflection of what the people desire. Hence, we have gun licensing and its all namely regulated by states. A prime example: New Hampshire has a much weaker gun law than the District of Columbia and i'm fine with this. The people should govern themselves.

2) The 1st amendment only guarantees that the gov't won't stop you right to free speech, religion, opinion, etc, but Aswaff is correct in that it guarantees no right for listeners. What smith (and aswaff) are after here is demanding some sort of level of accountability for writing. A blogger has little to none.

For example, I wrote an article about a year ago mentioning that Henrick Lundquivst of the NY Rangers had a vision issue. I did have a source but he/she was probably questionable at best. Better yet, I had no accountability for this. Could i be fired or even sued? Probably not. Then again, this would have never come out had i not mentioned it (showed up on deadspin actually)

Did LA just say we are all fools?

JuT - totally right on the second point. Thanks for backing me up.

On the first point, you're also right, I just wanted to point out that I wasn't trying to make any ultimate statement about the need for a militia. It's been interpreted differently by the courts depending on the time, and it actually appears as though the Supreme Court is set to overturn the current interpretation to essentially say that the framers didn't mean a well-regulated militia was necessary to bear arms. That's neither here nor there. I merely wanted to point out that there are a lot of people who don't know that part of the amendment, pointing out how little we actually do know about our laws and rights.

The right to bear arms is a simple one for me to get my head around. If the right was not put into the bill of rights the whole revolution would have been unconstitutional. ie. if it wasn't legal to bear arms after the formation of the US the act of forming a militia could not be defended. So if you look at it from the standpoint that to the founding fathers America was an occupied nation then it becomes obvious why the 2nd amendment had to be included. It legitimised their actions to other intellectuals around the world IMO and sanctioned the revolt againt the soverign which at the time was a big no no. Of course that is my opinion and I can't say with any certainty that this was in t

First of all, an action can't be retroactively unconstitutional. There was no Constitution before the Revolution, therefore, the Revolution could not have been unconstitutional.

I think, however, I do understand what you're trying to say. I'm all for the right to bear arms. But, I do also have to say that I am for people being aware of the fact that the Framers included the clause about a well-regulated militia. Bobby Knight going out deer hunting is not what they had in mind when they penned that Amendment.

I think you have to think a little deeper about this one and you might fully grasp the point. Any action taken to bring about revolution must be justified after the fact if the revolution is successful. Otherwise there would be no intellectual ground for the uprising.

The new government must be seen to be legitimate to be able to have relations with other foreign countries. Lets not forget that most of the world was still ruled by monarchy's and the US would have to keep them sweet in order to make any sort of diplomacy possible. That was the point of the declaration of independence and some aspects of the constitution. If they had not laid out the reasons and justifications for their actions the foundation of the government would be built on sand. Moreover, if they did not say that it is a citizen's right to bear arms, have freedom of speech and so on all the actions they took to defeat the British would be contrary to the acceptable morale code of the time.

I think a minus is a little sad.

By the way, I am not for the right to bear arms. I think the latest mass shooting in Nebraska is more evidence pointing to the real consequences of an armed society. I think it is an antiquated notion that has no relevence to modern American society or our own personal liberty. It is a hangover from an intellectual necessity at the time of the revolution is my point. I know I risk a lot of minuses by saying this, but so be it...GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED. Keep the freedom of speech, but please put down your guns.

Nothing to say. Was it a minus because you don't like what I said or that you don't believe it's true? Either way it's pretty sad just to minus and not comment.

Should be like Canada regarding the right to bear arms. And don't worry about the minusing- I get minused all the time due to it's me. I'm going to go live in Canada now

I'm not worried about it. It just annoys me when people spout on about something their professor told them in class and don't put any thought into a retort. I'm just funny that way, but thank you for your comment. There's always room in Manchester...we do have a bit of a problem with guns here too.

"I think you have to think a little deeper about this one and you might fully grasp the point. Any action taken to bring about revolution must be justified after the fact if the revolution is successful. Otherwise there would be no intellectual ground for the uprising."

I think the revolution needs to justified before-hand, actually. Regardless of a win or a loss, it's pretty pointless to justify a revolution after the fact. The colonies declared their right to defend themselves and their liberties, by force if necessary, well before the Second Amendment was written. And they had been a sovereign country for about a decade before they wrote the Constitution, so I think that while part of the reason for having the Second Amendment came from their experience of the Revolution, I don't think it had anything to do with a desire to justify their actions. If it was, they would have put that right into the Articles of Confederation.

If a revolution is unsuccessful there is no reason for the defeated side to justify their actions to anyone. They lost and therefore will have little if any political power to strive for unless they become a government in exile. This digression would take too long to fully persue. My point is about America making it possible for the country to be accepted by other world powers post revolution. Look at Cuba as an example of what can happen to a country if they don't play ball, so to speak, with the dominant political powers of the time. The same thing could have happened to America post revolution. The US could have had trade retrictions and other sanctions put upon them in the wake of the revolt. That was why all the actions had to be justified to the rest of the world. Of course the revolutionaries will believe in their right to fight the Colonial power so they will need no further convincing. I do think the Revolution was a just struggle and something that had to be done. I also think that parts of it, most noteably the 2nd amendment, no longer have any relevence in modern society. I don't think everyone being armed makes a country a safer place, I don't imagine the founding fathers thought so either. I'm not sure they could imagine some of the rapid firing weapons we have today. They were talking about single shot muskets and pistols when they put freedom to bear arms in the constitution. I'm not so sure any of them would try to defend an individuals right to have a grenade launcher or an AK-47 IMO. We can agree to disagree if you want.

I agree that I think the U.S. is safer without everyone being armed, and that automatic weapons were not what the framers had in mind. I also get what you're trying to say about us being justified on the world stage. But, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think your point is valid. We were incredibly isolationist at that point. Remember when Washington warned us against ANY international interaction when he was leaving office? Also, as I pointed out, we had the Articles of Confederation for a decade after we won our independence, and they did not grant the right to bear arms. So, I think that your premise is a little flawed.

I also wanted to say, just for the record, that I didn't give you all those minuses. I don't know who did, but it wasn't ALL me. I actually gave pluses to a couple of your comments.

Stephen A. makes a great point - If people who aren't trained as journalists, you know... well refined at masking the truth and packaging it for LCD commercial consumption - if they get to talking and blogging and don't hide truths and add subversive agendas, people might find out the truth about things!

see manny knows the inherent bias of journalists... its not like we don't all have agendas...come on now!

I hate agreeing with you Manny- hate it- can I just say you are wrong so we can go back to fighting or pick another topic to disagree on- Here I'll try anyway-- you're wrong Manny- you're wrong in that.... damn I can't do it- can we move on please

^^^^^^ can someone teach the children this???

LA, as a teacher, I try to make that point just about every day. The problem is that my message doesn't align very well with just about everything else they see and/or hear.

everything that is right? ; - )

I'd say its still infantile...but growing..AGM is taking the right steps

TB...guys like you and me (well, I can only speak for myself, really) are hobbiest more than journalists. We listen, read, chat, write, but all in good fun and entertainment.

Stephen A. has a point, bloggers have no accountability. But that's a double-edged sword. No accountability eliminates a certain kind of bias, but creates the possibility for some sheer lies as well.

a fine line indeed...

Accountability is rather subjective, isn't it?

The "popular" (I refuse to call it professional) media facks up facts all the time. And partisan politics have divided the reporting of our news beyond any point of sensible of objectivity.

In short, we see, read, listen and watch only what we are supposed to be shown.

And yes, I find that dangerous.

At least here, I can vent, rage, humor, etc. and interact without such agendas.

Just because I might not like all feedback or opinions, does not mean that I do not appreciate the forum.

Otherwise I would not bother being here. And neither would a lot of others.

This is another ridiculous discussion:

Free Speech- blogs exist for all the people here to express their feelings freely and opinionly- nobody here should be saying that they are journalist* or experts*- we are all individuals, and we all have our different opinions-

Problem is that certain individuals are starting to step on the toes of the so called experts* out there- ie people like Stephen A and Jay Mariotti-- They are worried and worried about one thing only- that their jobs are in JEOPARDY!!! Some of you are able to do a better job then they are and it makes them LOOK BAD!!!!!!!- they don't like their opinions nor their columns* to be dissected- they don't like people disagreeing with them- before "blogs" appeared we could only discuss a column* in person- there was no outlet- there was no way for us to communicate openly for all to see- from Europe to Chicago-- now the growing population of sports fans are basically "rebelling" against the sports media and telling them they are full of crap--

You guys read too much into things- Stephen A said this only because he's afraid- same as Jay Mariotti- afraid of their jobs, afraid of being called out for what they are- hacks!!!-- afraid they will lose their income, afraid they won't be needed anymore-- that's it that's all

Are you in politics Tyrone?? Is it one day going to be "VOTE FOR TYRONE: PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD!"--

Jamel - reread what Smith said:

"someone with no training should not be allowed to have any kind of format whatsoever to disseminate to the masses to the level which they can."

In Smith's utopia, you would not have been allowed to write the above comment (which was articulated quite well, mind you).

Deadspin isn't a credible source of news? Drudge isn't a credible source of information? Neither are considered belonging to the popular mass media yet thousands (Deadspin) & millions (Drudge) visit their websites.

Why do I need to re-read this-- I'm agreeing with you- however- the only reason he said it is because he's afraid-

What I don't understand (and I'm not going to read all of these comments) is that it looks like this actually became a debate (not a discussion but a debate)

This is as stupid as the national anthem debate- to me this is so cookie cutter straight forward that I can't believe people don't see what Stephen A wrote as being wrong

agreed...

and this is why I'm fine with bloggers...you or I or Joe Blow has a right to put as much or as little stock into any piece of writing as we wish...

besides...all the real news is written by AP and Routers...most of which are...well...poor young journalists...heh

Your opinion perhaps, but it seems to be a discussion to me.

Smith's comments mean different things to different people. And those differing views were exchanged without resorting to personal attacks.

Seems okay.

Whatever T-Bone- Can't we just all agree that Smith is a douchebag

JuT hit on something very relevant - the dwindling sources/diggers for information. Corporate mergers/takeovers/etc. have grossly limited the number of rivaling media groups. Clear channel monopolizes the radio (which has been decimated by declining listeners who are turning to satellite), the AP is practically responsible for all "news updates" leaving newspaper staffs largely ONLY responsible for editorial content.

I think we already are in agreement about Smith. T-bone?

Can you use smaller and "less hard words to understand" Tyrone.. or perhaps translate it to Jamel talk :)

And you dont' like T-Bone??

But JuT is right- the media ring is shrinking-- which makes it even scarier- Jay Mariotti is everywhere!!!!!

Well at least I don't start every sentence with, "Quite frankly, ...."!

Not following... do we know each other?

I'm ripping Smith.

I've never and won't read his shit

Quite Frankly, that show is on ESPN2...suck on that!

There is MUCH more wrong and MUCH worse in the media today than Stephen A. Smith. Again, I'm no fan of his by any stretch of the imagination, but because sports journalists are not charged with keeping the government accountable before the people, I have a hard time saying he's everything that's wrong with the media. There are much more influential people in the media doing much more detrimental things than Stephen A. Smith.

The mere fact that Stephen A. Smith is even remotely relevant in a major media outlet such as ESPN is disturbing.

"In short, we see, read, listen and watch only what we are supposed to be shown.

And yes, I find that dangerous. "

I agree. However, first of all, JuT is right to say we're not journalists. And most bloggers aren't. Reading their commentary is interesting and entertaining, but they're not journalists. And I am of the opinion that there are as many bloggers out there doing damage as doing good. I'm all for citizen journalism, but you have to recognize that with the added points of view also comes added gossip and even libel. However, again, this is not a First Amendment issue. That's the main thing I wanted to point out. I'm not for silencing anyone, I just think it's important for people to realize that what we're doing here actually has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and we are NOT protected by the Constitution.

I agree with that, Tyrone, and that's exactly what I said when he got his own show. However, I find the fact that Glenn Beck has his own show on CNN Headline News MUCH more disturbing.

Ahhh, another good view point (this is getting very interesting now). But who is to say what the qualifications are for "being a journalist"? And since when did it become permissible for so-called "journalists" to cross-over to the "entertainment genre" and become a screaming, raving talking head opining outrageous statements simply to become more famous/notorious?

The same jackasses that decry/belittle the blogging community tend to be the same idiots ranting and raving on shows such as ATH.

Can't have it both ways. At least not with me.

And I do respect what you are saying ASwaff in terms of the "bigger picture" with this discussion. However, I'm trying to confine myself within the parameters of a sports discussion (as I know you are as well).  :)

That's a very tough question, and one we addressed in the media law and ethics class I took this semester. It's tough to tell who a journalist is, which is why journalists don't have the same confidentiality rights that doctors, lawyers and spouses have. Doctors, lawyers and spouses cannot be forced by the court to reveal private information about their patient or spouse. However, journalists can be required to testify about information given to them by a source, in part because journalists don't have licenses like doctors or lawyers, or a wedding certificate, like a spouse. Who is a journalist is much more nebulous. I just find it a lot easier to say that we are not journalists just because I have a very different attitude towards sports writing. Because, as I mentioned before, sports journalists aren't charged with the public interest in the way other journalists are, I tend to just call them writers. In my opinion, sports is ALL entertainment, no matter how in-depth or investigative the reporting may be.

Well said. That might make an interesting paper.

Because blogs are growing-- don't unestimate certain blogs nor even yours Nightowl- I have read many different blogs that quote other blogs that quote other blogs, etc etc, etc- just because yours only has 12 readers doesnt' mean it's affecting 12 people- The Revolution is about the begin......

no offense niteowl, but there are bigger fish out there...

Like Drudge (of the drudgereport.com) as TB mentioned who get thousands of readers every day and is quoted by people like sean hannity (for better or for worse). these are the people, the supposed leaders of the bloggers, whom smith is mostly after

but any of us could become them...heck, Bill Simmons anyone...

Drudge gets millions of hits. One could argue that he started the blogging concept.

Jay Mariotti reads Jay the Joke- he called us "internet creatures"- that was kind of cool-

I'm sure Facktard calls us something else off the record!

internet creatures = people who actually think

"off the record" is a good show on Canadian ESPN something like it- anyone seen it???? I saw it will I was in Toronto-- ESPN should pick it up- the host just needs to learn not to say aboot, eh, or call people hosers...

You talk a lot about Canada.

Off the Record is great. It's on TSN in Candada. Still, Smith is right. A lot of sports blogs suck and are poorly written. AGM has advantage that it's community based, and there are more than enough people here willing to criticize and critique each other's articles. We bring the workrate.

Actually Smith isn't right. A lot books printed sold at Borders suck and are poorly written. Actually a lot of sports columnist* suck are their writting is poorly written. Actually Smith sucks. I think I'm going to move to Canada. Any suggestions?

If journalistic credibility and integrity were measured by the length of a man's dong, then Stephen A Smith would have a vagina. BTW: http://www.retardedvagina.com

I just snorted beer out of my nose-- that's freakin hilarious-- sweet baby jesus reading that made me laugh out loud- congrats T-Bone- if this isn't the top comment of the day for months on end shame on all of

Lastly- give props out to the one who bought that website and linked it- god bless his soul

I think it was Nick from JTJ.

Nick is cool- he's a good "boy"

See now why doesn't that type of commentary hit ESPN?

Apparently it's dangerous for people like me to have my voice heard. That, and I lack the proper training and expertise to have an opinion. :)

I'm just waiting for the first commercial to announce the grand opening of the "Stephen A. Smith School of Qualified Journalism'.

ACTUALLY, THIS SCHOOL IS FANTASTIC! YOU COULDN'T GET A BETTER EDUCATION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD! OUR TEACHERS ARE GREAT! OUR STUDENTS ARE GREAT! THIS SCHOOL CANNOT BE STOPPED! (I could do this all day. Everything is fun when using the Stephen A. voice)

You forgot to start off with, "Quite frankly....!"

Sorry, dropped the ball there. If I had been professionally trained I wouldn't have made such a mistake.

Anything you use to attack another is a weapon TB ya?

Why does a discussion have to degenerate into any "attack"?

I'm sorry if I lost the orginal point, but that quote is from my orginal comment to this post and I interpeted the orginal post as an attack on SAS using the 1st Amendment and his own words as weapons against him. However, the poster misused the consititution, like it is usually misused around here. What am I missing TB?

The continuity is a little jumbled. No worries.

First of all, it's already been stated over and over that this was not an issue of the First Amendment. Disagree with Smith if you want, but if you think his statement is in contradiction of the First Amendment, it is YOU who needs to do some studying.

Secondly, shame on you for invoking the lives of fallen soldiers so frivolously. They died to protect our freedoms, not for you to use them to disparage someone's opinion on sports bloggers. That was shameful.

Wow, that post was truly too dumb for words. How many bumper-sticker slogans can you fit on one post? And do you honestly think that your tirade about the rights of sports bloggers is roughly the same as the words of Lincoln? There's such a thing as context, my friend, and you should be more conscious of it.

Secondly, I understand the desire to make others grateful for the troops and what they do. And I am fully aware of what they sacrifice and why they fight. But I remain offended at the shameless use of their lives to gin up support for a website. They're not fighting for the existence of Armchairgm. There are much more important things that they are fighting for. Especially because, as I said before, our participation here is not actually protected by the Constitution.

Also, I was not accusing you of disparaging the soldiers. Reread my post. I said that you were USING the soldiers to disparage Smith, as if he doesn't appreciate their sacrifice. That was offensive and absurd.

There are other democratic countries that protect free speech besides ourselves. That kind of arrogance, to think we're the only free country in the world, is just shocking. And I never said anything about Lincoln's words being divisive. I KNOW they were ones bringing a country together. I wasn't chastising Lincoln. I was chastising you for thinking that what you're doing here is akin to anything Lincoln ever did.

And yes, "free speech is not free" is a bumper sticker slogan. And I totally agree that free speech must be protected. I'm a journalism student. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two of the most important things in my life. I'm just pointing out, for those who seem as though they've never actually read the Constitution, that being provided a venue is NOT a Constitutional right. You merely have the right to express yourself. Being guaranteed a place to say it does not fall within the scope of the First Amendment, the same way that having access to information so that the people CAN talk about it does not fall within the scope of the First Amendment. You need to do some studying.

Nothing left to contribute? Just need to keep giving me minuses? Haha.