Unedr the same first amendment rights, religious institutions are not
allowed to advocate for a given party nor can we the citizen, shout
FIRE! in a crowded theatre, so then why does the media gets away with
both?


Guru-Time...

I imagine that if a member of the media shouted FIRE! in a crowded
theater, he would be treated the same as the rest of us.

Churches don't pay taxes, so have no right to participate in the political process.

So, Nelson, since poor people don't pay taxes, that means that they
should not participate in the political process either, right?  I can
see that you did not think it through before you answered.
 
Incidentally, do you believe that, not paying taxes is the main
benefit of the 1st Amendment?  In addition, paying taxes does not
allow us to violate the restrictions on first amendment rights.

Thank you for being first to respond to my question, but this is not
going to bribe me into not zinging you for not oreconizing that in a
time of war, telling the enemy of our shortcomings and whipping up a
frenzy to force the government to tell every secret is worse than
crying fire.  The latter could kill a few hundred people while the
former could result in the deaths of millions.

Dear Tough Lover, 

First of all, the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment does
not prohibit religious organisations from taking political stand or
political action (and there have been quiet a few exaples of that in
US history), but prohibits the state from intevening in religious
affairs or to prefer a specific denomination. Churches have every
right to express themselves politically if they wish so.

Regarding "Shouting Fire": several limitation to free speech have been
set by the Supreme Court. By the way, not much - it is a "holy"
principle. Shouting fire was given as an equivalent of causing undue
panic, but it has nothing to do with advocating political ideas, as
exreme as they may be. You can find in America political parties (and
"Churches", or religious groups, if you prefer) that would have been
banned in many countries, including my own, because of their hateful
message towards what they define as "non-Aryans". Acivity of the
extreme left has been limited in the United States during the "Witch
Hunt" and other periods, but one can still find an American Communist
Party, with a candidate that runs for President this year in several
states <http://www.cpusa.org/>.

So, the press has the right as anybody else, and it would be wrong to
assume that they have superior rights than Churches or individuals.

whoa boy! calm yerself toughlover!

the "enemy" already knows of our shortcomings . . . how do you think
they managed to outsmart NORAD with boxcutters?

Here's a quiz: what's one good reason why Osama's capture is the last
thing the Bush admin wants to happen . . . hmmm?

Don'tcha think the Bush admin's negligence in regards to North Korea
and Iran ...  just might mean curtains for all of us?

toughlover-ga, you are absolutely correct, the poor should not be
allowed to vote either.  I'm sure Bush and his cronies would greatly
advocate this, as the poor usually vote Democrat.

"Churches Can't Pray for Bush:" http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41145

Worlddailynet.com "stories" now have the force of law?

Curious that it's domain is http://www.wnd.com -- what's it stand for?
 Weapons of Nitwick Destruction?

I don't know about this wnd article, but it is fairly well documented
elsewhere that churches are very limited in the political statements
they can make because of their tax-exempt status.  The Mainstream
Coalition (http://www.mainstreamcoalition.org) has sent volunteers to
monitor churches for political activity.  This is mentioned in a
couple articles the Mainstream Coalition's website links to:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14127
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0923/p11s02-lire.html
I have also read about this issue in print media.

So why is it that the media are allowed to endorse political
candidates and churches are not?  Because churches have tax-exempt
status.  This is fairly clear cut.  Subtleties arise when there is
confusion over whether or not a church is making a political
statement--a pastor might not explicitly endorse a candidate, but it
can be very evident which candidate he favors.

Some non-profit organizations avoid this problem by not obtaining tax-exempt status.

The Pope doesn't pay taxes either . . .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/popeaddress.shtml

That's one of the benefits of having your own country.

Biophysicist, thanks for your comment, but I am curious as to why so
much attention is given to the "church" part of my anology.  Is not
the right of the individual citizen just as important?

I admit that I could have found a better example of restrictions that
the courts or the constitution itself places on us, but if you are
engaginging in this discussion from the standpoint of fleshing out
what is best for our country rather than who will look good, then you
would never let manner spoil meaning.  Instead you may even run over
to bring me some fresh amonition if I should run out as Austrailian
Aboriginies is said to have done during their war against the Brits.

The crux of my argument is that no entity should be immine from
respecting restrictions that the courts have wisely placed on First
Amendment Rights, ie 'thou shalt not falsly shout FIRE!, nor commit
sedition nor aid and abet the enemy nor reveal national secrets, nor
bear fals witnes for profit nor pride.
The media, like the police is essential and invaluable to our society,
when they have the same cheks and balances as do the "other" three
branches of government, but left unchecked we lapse into a
"police-state", or worse a "Mafia-Media" state.  The media is
currently untouchable; the president wont rein them in, the
legislators wont rein them in, nor will the Courts, because the media
has the power to smear them all.

I have observed that some people shudder to think what things would be
like with no media and so would any sane person; but if I had cancer
in one lung I would shudder straight up to the sergeons office but I
would not be so stupid as to try to live with both.

A Church's tax exempt status is not based on poverty but on the fact
that they are non-partisan charitable organizations. If a church
openly endorses a political candidate, then they cease to be
non-partisan. Many churches skirt the issue by advocating against
voting for pro-choice candidates. By not mentioning a candidate by
name, they are technically not being partisan. As for yelling fire in
a theater, this is perfectly legal provided you sincerly believe there
is a fire. If you yell fire just to provoke a reaction, than it's a
different story. Hence the media may report what it reasonably
believes to be the truth without fear of prosecution.