Here's a quote for you....

[revelarts]

“There is no such thing… in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with…

The business of the Journalist is to destroy truth;
To lie outright;
To pervert;
To vilify;
To fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.

You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes.
We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance.

Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.
We are intellectual prostitutes.”

– John Swinton, the former chief of staff of the New York Times,
called by his peers, “The Dean of his profession,” in a speech at the New York Press Club.

[revelarts]

...Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

Albert Einstein

[revelarts]

[revelarts]

[revelarts]

[revelarts]

“for thei seynge seen not, and thei herynge heren not”;


From 1395 Wycliffe English Bible
portion of Matthew 13:13

[revelarts]

Excerpt from the book 1984

... There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.'

He paused as though he expected Winston to speak. Winston had tried to shrink back into the surface of the bed again. He could not say anything. His heart seemed to be frozen. O'Brien went on:

'And remember that it is for ever. The face will always be there to be stamped upon. The heretic, the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again. Everything that you have undergone since you have been in our hands -- all that will continue, and worse. The espionage, the betrayals, the arrests, the tortures, the executions, the disappearances will never cease. It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph. The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism. Goldstein and his heresies will live for ever. Every day, at every moment, they will be defeated, discredited, ridiculed, spat upon and yet they will always survive. This drama that I have played out with you during seven years will be played out over and over again generation after generation, always in subtler forms. Always we shall have the heretic here at our mercy, screaming with pain, broken up, contemptible -- and in the end utterly penitent, saved from himself, crawling to our feet of his own accord. That is the world that we are preparing, Winston. A world of victory after victory, triumph after triumph after triumph: an endless pressing, pressing, pressing upon the nerve of power. ...

[revelarts]

The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger


.
.
.




Churchmen are quick to defend religious freedom; lawyers were never so universally aroused as by President Roosevelt's Court bill; newspapers are most alert to civil liberties when there is a hint of press censorship in the air. And educators become perturbed at every effort to curb academic freedom. But too seldom do all of these become militant when ostensibly the rights of only one group are threatened. They do not always react to the truism that when the rights of any individual or group are chipped away, the freedom of all erodes.

Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren

[revelarts]

"I perceive two fundamental difficulties with a narrow reading of the Press Clause.

First, although certainty on this point is not possible, the history of the Clause does not suggest that the authors contemplated a “special” or “institutional” privilege. . . . Most pre-First Amendment commentators “who employed the term ‘freedom of speech’ with great frequency, used it synonymously with freedom of the press.” . . .
Those interpreting the Press Clause as extending protection only to, or creating a special role for, the “institutional press” must either
(a) assert such an intention on the part of the Framers for which no supporting evidence is available . . . ;
(b) argue that events after 1791 somehow operated to “constitutionalize” this interpretation . . . ; or
(c) candidly acknowledging the absence of historical support, suggest that the intent of the Framers is not important today. . . .

The second fundamental difficulty with interpreting the Press Clause as conferring special status on a limited group is one of definition. . . . The very task of including some entities within the “institutional press” while excluding others, whether undertaken by legislature, court, or administrative agency, is reminiscent of the abhorred licensing system of Tudor and Stuart England—a system the First Amendment was intended to ban from this country. . . . In short, the First Amendment does not “belong” to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms."

Chief Justice Warren Burger, who wrote in response to the press-as-institution view:
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/...9/sentelle.pdf

[revelarts]

It is doubtful that congress would pass the Bill of Rights if it were introduced today.
Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren