So what is going on here? Why isn’t this court win a valid news story, in keeping with the mainstream press coverage of earlier landmark moments in the Wheaton case?
I fear that, once again, we may be seeing a fascinating – old-fashioned First Amendment radicals would say “disturbing” – development in journalism.
While a rock-ribbed defense of First Amendment rights – for everyone, left and right – used to be a key element of liberalism, as traditionally defined in American political thought, it would appear that this is no longer the case.
All of a sudden, “free speech” and “religious liberty” (but not freedom of the press, thank God) have been locked inside scare quotes. Thus, journalism about wins for the wrong kinds of First Amendment rights is something for the Internet-era “conservative” media to handle.
Thus, the crickets.
“We are grateful to God that the court recognized Wheaton’s religious identity and protected our ability to affirm the sanctity of human life,” Wheaton president Phillip Ryken said in a statement. “The government should never have tried to force us to provide drugs and services against our faith, and we are pleased by the resolution of our case.”
IMAGE: benvi photography / Shutterstock.com