The First Amendment, Part Two

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Yesterday we covered the freedom of religion, or at least what it has become after the reinterpretation of it by the courts after atheist and leftist tinkerers had finished their work. Today we will address the second clause of the first amendment.

“Congress shall make no law ……. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

Some would argue that logical restrictions of free speech are warranted in some cases because the content of that speech is abrasive, intolerant or even violent. We’ve all heard that recently charged in the world of talk radio or political television where a statement made by a commentator is offensive or even hateful. Almost immediately, those claiming to be offended by those statements send out the rally cry to eliminate this voice from the airwaves. I’m sorry, but people will always be offended by one thing or another and that is not a compelling reason to restrict the first amendment. There is however, an effective protection already available to those that are easily offended by these views. It’s called personal responsibility. The last time I looked none of these personalities had a captive audience that is forcibly subjected to their programs. If you don’t like what is being said…don’t listen to it, don’t watch it and for heaven’s sake, don’t buy it. Whew! That was easy!

I will be the first to admit that some of those voices are harsh and intolerant; some are ignorant and some are just plain vicious. Then there are others that are being targeted and ridiculed not because they were overtly cruel in the expression of their ideas but rather because the ideas themselves fundamentally differ from those that would seek to silence them. No matter how conscious I am of keeping my writings centered on the truth and how much I strive to invite rational discussion on these issues to promote a healthy understanding between opposing views, there are some that are so disinterested in the word, that they resort to personal attacks and display a sincere and passionate desire to silence me as well. Believe it or not, I support their right to speak freely too…I simply choose to ignore it.

The founding fathers were well aware of the intricacies of free speech and knew that some would promote dissent and even hatred. Even still, they recognized that the freedom to express ones thoughts and ideas in both spoken and printed form was essential to the well being of the Republic. On November 23, 1787, James Madison addressed these concerns in a letter written to the people of New York, which was then the seat of the U.S. Government. This letter is part of a collection of writings know as the Federalist Papers. The Federalist papers provide clear insight as to the thought and intentions of the men that created our Constitution and the Federal Government as we know it. Mr. Madison said…

“It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

I know that eighteenth century English is a bit hard to follow at times but the essence of his argument was that to eliminate liberty, including the freedom of speech, because it may feed anger would be similar to eliminating air because it may feed fire. The former would suffocate the Republic to prevent anger while the latter would suffocate life to prevent fire. And yet, we still have people that see fit to advocate just that; the suffocation of the Republic to quell dissent. Mark Lloyd, appointed by Mr. Obama as the Chief Diversity Officer, a newly created position in the FCC says that “…freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction…”

Mr. Lloyd is currently driving a program that will, if allowed to be enacted, effectively shut down privately owned radio and television stations that do not pass his “diversity equation” by requiring fees (let’s just call it what it is, a conservative talk tax) equal to 100% of their operating budget. In the interest of fairness and diversity, those fees will be used to fund public broadcasting. Public broadcasting, whose programming incidentally, supports the Obama administration’s agenda.

Stations that cannot pay the fee will have their broadcast license withdrawn and sold to minority interests that better reflect his idea of diversity. My fear is that his idea of diversity is actually code for programming that is ironically, identical to that of public broadcasting.

Well if that is the new direction of the FCC, then of course the Constitutional protections of free speech and a free press would be a distraction. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Lloyd, they may be a distraction but they are also protected under the word of law and would pose a constitutional quagmire for this Presidency if people in his administration openly sought to erode that protection.

Freedom of the press possesses the same protections under the Constitution and for the same reasons. Fortunately for the press, there is no government equivalent to the FCC so they don’t suffer the same degree of interference that the broadcast media does. Besides, the majority of main stream newspapers overwhelmingly support the Obama administration and therefore, the content in these publications is effectively sterilized before it is printed. I would submit that if the press were actually hostile to this administration that there would be plans to bring the printed press under the guidance of Mr. Lloyd as well.

It is exceedingly hard to find a print paper that contains views that contain a diverse and broad spectrum of views which is why I posted that quote by Abbott Joseph Liebling on the picture that adorns the top of this page. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”. If you want diversity in the press, don’t shut them down, get your own press and compete for the hearts and soul of the American people. That is the fair way; the American way; the Constitutional way.

Film falls under this as well as a medium of expression. We know that a major portion of the Hollywood elite also support the President. The overwhelming majority of documentary and political films are highly critical of conservative ideals and label libertarians as lunatics however, they are vocally supportive of the progressive movement. Why is it that the demands for a fair and diverse representation of opposing views is not being thrust upon film and entertainment industry as fervently as it is in the broadcast media? After all, there is an agency for that. Once again, the majority of Hollywood and their works merge nicely with the agenda of this administration so that is obviously diverse enough to gain a pass from the watchful eye of government. Besides, Hollywood guards themselves far more carefully that government ever could.

Ron Silver was a well known film actor as well as a progressive and liberal activist. He starred in many films and television programs and had a bright future awaiting him in the industry. That was until he was so enraged by the terror attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 that he became a very vocal supporter of President Bush and of the war to bring those responsible to justice. That did not fit the Hollywood mold and the powers that be saw to it that he rarely, if ever worked again. His exclusion from film continued right up to the time of his death.

The internet is now under assault because of the wide spread use of this forum for those who wish to be heard. Most would not take the time if the news reported actual news instead of airing hour long editorial pieces. No one would waste their time on blogs, web pages and web news if the press would fulfill their obligation to accurately and fairly report the unfiltered truth. Since the profusion of people that believe this nation is in danger have taken to the internet to spread the word, that has become a threat similar to that on broadcast networks. New legislation is being drafted that would give the President the authority to deny internet traffic, even private and business internet traffic, in the event of a national crisis.

Well since this administration has assumed the reigns of government how many crisis’s have already been announced in an attempt to fast track legislation in keeping with the President’s agenda? Let’s see….there was the subprime mortgage crisis, the climate crisis, the healthcare crisis, the credit crisis, the banking crisis…on and on. Is it far fetched to assume that if internet journalists and bloggers are impeding the President’s progress in healthcare or the climate by causing doubt in the minds of Americans, could that not be viewed as a “national crisis” all by itself?

No, the founding fathers recognized that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were of paramount importance to the Republic and are part of the natural right that all men possessed with or without government consent. We do not need government control of free speech because we have already insured that hand in hand with the freedom of speech there is a responsibility that has tangible and effective enforcements.

If the misuse of your free speech rights has denied a person any one of their basic civil rights then there are legal and civil consequences for that. If you yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater there are legal and civil consequences for that as well, especially if there are injuries. If you slander someone with false accusations there are legal and civil consequences for that too. It seems like the people and the States themselves have done a pretty good job in making sure people use this freedom wisely without the heavy handed oversight of the Federal Government which once again, proves the genius and foresight of those amazing crafters of the Constitution.

Please come back tomorrow for part three of the First Amendment…Freedom of Assembly


Paul