Why was Karlee WeinmannâÄôs May 7 article about the RNC 8 on the front page? IsnâÄôt that where the news goes? Her piece contained absolutely zero reporting and was some of the most biased writing I can imagine being printed as news. And I do know about Fox News. The article contains two sentences describing what the allegations against the RNC are; police infiltrated their group and arrested them based on information. The rest of the article is about how our first amendment rights are in danger and how there is a trend toward total suppression of dissent. I read an entire article about government suppression of dissent without actually reading what the problem is. DidnâÄôt they do something illegal? ArenâÄôt they awaiting a jury trial? IsnâÄôt that whatâÄôs supposed to happen? Are these not the same people who were caught with all kinds of evidence that they intended on violently disrupting the RNC? DidnâÄôt they have buckets of feces in their houses when they were searched? The article makes no claim of their innocence. Am I to conclude that the First Amendment protects their right to do what they did? To plan on inciting violence? Surely a law professor would know thatâÄôs not true. Do you really think they are being prosecuted for planning to peacefully attend a protest? This is basically a conspiracy theory at this point, and it doesnâÄôt belong on the front page of even the crappiest newspaper. Simon Gruber University student