Healthy minds can see that "freedom of the press" has become license to destroy the West, but what can be done about it?

Is freedom of the press so baked into the Constitution that it can't be amended and still retained? The problem is that distinctly different people create distinctively different cultures. Freedom of the press worked fairly well when America was more homogeneous. The Northern European people who first immigrated to America shared more or less the same values and virtues.

This is no longer the case. The later American immigration melting pot of non-homogeneous ethnic groups tragically did not melt. Freedom of the press was eventually corrupted or used as the will to power of distinctly different people with distinctly different cultural needs. The advances of one people destroyed another people. Human nature remains as it has always been, kin-centered and ethnocentric.

The American constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism, could accommodate an ethnopluralism of ethnostates (perhaps with a few amendments) and avoid the radical civil or ethnic wars that are coming if we do not.

So the answer to the question seems to be, no, nothing substantial can be done about the corruption of the freedom of the press to destroy the West until regions and states become ethnostates with homogeneous ethnic groups. Even then the groups that can reasonably handle freedom of the press will have it, and groups that cannot will not.

Will the corrupt power of the Big Media allow this nation-saving conservative solution? The totalitarian Soviet Union and Nazi Germany grew out of similar dilemmas.