Here's a conseqence of this SCD. Arthur Ashe(1943-93) was on of the great tennis players of the 20th century.

• first African-American to play on the ;US Davis Cup Team against international competition;
• won Grand Slam Singles in U. S. Open;
• won Grand Slam Australian Singles;
• won Wimbledon Grand Slam singles.

But, following a heart attack, while undergoing surgery, Ashe was given AIDS-contaminated blood, and developed AIDS, which eventually led to his death.

Reporters of a Long Island newspaper learned of his AIDS condition, and, without consulting him beforehand, had a newspaper story published about it. His young daughter first learned of this when taunted at school about it.

Does "First Amendment Rights" justify the excuse made by the reporters that, as a public figure, they had the right to proceed as they did? This is a variation on "Ad Hominem", usually meaning to attack a person when unable to attack his/her arguments. In this variation, the public position of a person allows doing anything to that person.

On the other hand, we have the statement of the noted Washington Post reporter and one-time ombudsman, writing in this 1993 book, Median Circus, that reporters knew about the impending Savings-and-Loans bankruptcies prior to the 1988 Presidential Election, but did not write about it, until after the election.

This is prototypal of mediacs claiming their rights: to write or not to write.

In Fall, 2003, a newstory developed with both aspects. A news columnist, Robert Novak, asserted his right to name a woman CIA operative, even though this could threaten her life and those she associate with and is supposed to violate a 1982 Law passed by Congress; yet Novak also asserted his rights not to name the "adminstration officials" who told him this, even though it is possible that they did it for a political purpose against Democrats.

Those seeking protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution must do more to convince me that their real concern is for "liberty" of our society, rather than protection of their jobs.

In most discussions of "First Amendment Rights", the discussants make me feel as if I, and other non-mediacs, are second-class citizens.