"The right to free speech DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to be published in a newspaper of your choice. Since no newspaper threatens to jail the vets, there is no "rights" issue."
I agree to a point, but there is an expectation of equal treatment that they should expect from a purportedly "free and unbiased" press. For the "mainstream" media to blatantly black them out, and restrict access to media outlets that the likes of Moore, Clarke, and Wilson dominated for weeks is just plain wrong. It isn't a matter of being published in a paper of your choice; it is a matter of being covered at ALL.
Nobody could compare the NG story and the SBVT story and claim that coverage was equivalent. Not with a straight face anyway.
Whether you like how they do it or not, Rush, Hannity, and more recently, FoxNews have given play to both sides of these issues and other, probably in line with their "we report, you decide" motto. The rest of the media appears to have a "we report what we decide is fit for you to hear/see" motto, which, though unstated, screams louder than any amount of advertising Fox could do.
You and I are on the same side of the fence here - my point was ONLY that to call it an abridgement of 1st amendment rights is a mistake.
Whether you have an "expectation of equal treatment" or not is immaterial to what goes on. The Constitution does not gurantee us a "free and unbiased" press - it just says the government won't (must not) interfere with it.
I agree it's a sorry situation. Being free doesn't mean we get the best. It means we have a better CHANCE at getting the best. It's up to the people to require it. And, for the most part, they don't.