I think that the latest William Bennett kerfuffle is a tempest in a teapot, but his response irritates me a little:

A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. I get just as annoyed when people on the so-called right wrap themselves in the First Amendment as a rhetorical barrier against criticism as I do when people on the left do.

There is nothing in the First Amendment that protects anyone from having their speech criticized. Such criticism is itself protected by the First Amendment. All that the amendment says is that "Congress shall pass no law..." Unless there was a legislative move afoot today to outlaw Bill Bennett from putting his foot in his mouth of which I was previously unaware, I don't know to what he's referring here.

"There is nothing in the First Amendment that protects anyone from having their speech criticized."

Absolutely correct. He should just threaten to whip their butts if they don't stop defaming him. I have never been able to understand why people can't just call a skunk a skunk.

Tob

I've taken his comment to mean that it's a disgrace that someone would take this awesome right for granted in such a base and stupid way. I don't think he is angry that there is critisim... just that it is so miserably bad.

I believe he was refering to Conyers and some other Dem's attempts to have him banned from Publi Radio
Mike

I'm with monolithfoo, he didn't say a "violation of" the First Amendment, he said a "disgrace to" the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the criticisms of William Bennett, but those criticisms are plain distortions of his sense, and therefore constitute irresponsible use of constitutionally protected speech. The First Amendment is still a good idea, which hopefully is obvious to us after living under it for centuries, but a new nation considering whether to adopt something similar would not find in the unfair criticisms of Mr. Bennett anything to commend the idea of a First Amendment. Hence, a "disgrace".

Planned Parenthood Advocates Abortion to Reduce Crime

And the bizarre thing is that Bennett, who explicitly rejects abortion, is under attack.