Hard to know what to make of this piece by Eliott C. McLaughlin — except, of course, that it pretty much sums up the state of journalistic thinking in the MSM these days, which includes a reflexive disdain for constitutional principles it disagrees with while trying to be “fair and balanced.”

Experts: Angry rhetoric protected, but can be disturbing

Here’s how it begins:

Letting disgruntled citizens vent is important to national security, experts say, but some messages emanating from angry Americans in recent weeks have pressed the boundaries of free speech.

Important to national security?  Free speech is important for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that, since John Milton’s Areopagitica essay, it has been the basis of all the liberties of modern democracy. And what, exactly, are the “boundaries of free speech” in a society whose Constitution states, in the First Amendment, that “Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

Politicians have reported slurs as well as threatening letters and phone calls. Congressmen have reported vandalism to their offices. One said he was spit on. Another said his brother’s gas line was cut after a Tea Party member posted his address online.

Tea Party leaders denounce the threats and deny involvement, pointing to fringe elements — not Tea Party members, per se, but groups with degrees of overlapping ideologies.

But the angry rhetoric is not isolated to fringe groups. Both mainstream liberal and conservative camps have joined the chorus, and while some of the language sounds threatening, most of it is protected.

(more…)

There are only two choices: either Attorney General Eric Holder has nothing to hide, or he is trying to hide something. If the former is true, why does Holder refuse to put names to the seven anonymous Department of Justice attorneys whom he admits once represented terrorist detainees before joining the Obama administration? If the latter is the case, why is the old media ignoring the story?

Responding to an inquiry from Senator Charles Grassley, Holder admitted that nine DOJ attorneys had previously been involved defending detainees:

“To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees,” Holder said in a letter dated Feb. 18. “Four others contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.”

Who are these attorneys? How deeply were they committed to protecting the “rights” of irregular troops bent on destruction of western civilization? (more…)