Accomplices of Terrorism: Is “Freedom of the Press” the Freedom To Murder?

The United States Supreme Court has clearly established that yelling ‘Fire!!’ in a crowded theater does NOT come under the Constitutional provision of “freedom of speech” for the very simple reason that exercise of that Constitutional right may very well result in the loss of human life.

But I would argue that, especially in the context of the current war against Islamic terrorism, a similar situation also obtains with regards to the Constitutional provision of “freedom of the press”:

Assume, just for the sake of the argument, that a mechanical engineer has developed a revolutionary new technology capable of detecting micro-stresses in physical structures and predicting catastrophic failure.

Assume that, with the use of this technology, he has determined, with some degree of certainty, that one segment of a particularly heavily-trafficked bridge is demonstrating an increasing potential for catastrophic failure; and, in an effort to prevent the loss of human life, he forwards the results of those tests to the editor of the local newspaper.

As a result of the highly technical nature of that information, however—and, possibly, because he has certain ‘financial relationships’ with the company that constructed the bridge—the editor simply disregards that information altogether and does not even respond to the engineer’s communication.

And, subsequently, that segment of the bridge collapses, resulting in the loss of hundreds of human lives.

First question:

Can the editor of that newspaper be prosecuted for “criminal negligence resulting in wrongful death” because he did not exercise “due diligence” with regards to the information he had been sent by the engineer?

(After all, not only did he not publish that information; he also did not even bother to respond at all, or investigate whether that information was, in any way, accurate or credible.)

Second question:

Why should this not ALSO apply to the editor of a newspaper who censors information about the fundamental Revelations and Prophecies in the Quran; that censorship resulting in dozens of people being killed by ‘home grown’ terrorists radicalized because of the censorship of those Revelations and Prophecies?

In other words, just as it does NOT come under the Constitutional provision of “freedom of speech” to yell ‘Fire!!’ in a crowded theater, I would argue that it should also NOT come under the Constitutional provision of “freedom of the press” to censor information which, if publicized, would likely result in a decrease in the loss of human life by Islamic terrorists who have NEVER been informed of the Revelations in the Quran; and, also, that it should NOT come under the Constitutional provision of “freedom of religion” for hundreds of people to die from Islamic terrorism because the monotheistic religious officials have chosen to disregard and censor Revelations (and Prophecies) which conclusively demonstrate that they have perverted their respective Revelations.

In any case, regardless of whether the legal system in the United States is even capable of responding appropriately to such concerns, it should be obvious to all but the brain-dead that, by censoring the fundamental Revelations of the Quran, the officials of the media and the monotheistic religious officials are assuming both an ethical and moral responsibility for those who die as a result of not only Islamic terrorism; but, also, Zionist terrorism, Christian-Zionist terrorism, and anti-Semitic and Islamophobic terrorism.

Michael (Chapter 12, verse 1 of the Book of Daniel, Sura 2, verse 98 of the Quran, Column XVII of the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light & Chapter 3, verse 12 of the Revelation of John)