Freedom of speech. Period.

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, September 17, 2003 | Joseph Farah

[JohnHuang2]

"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."

– First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I guess it's time for another lesson on the First Amendment.

For the life of me, I can't figure out what's so difficult to understand about these 45 words – most of them only one syllable.

Yet, lately, they have been misconstrued, misunderstood, misapplied, ignored, distorted and turned upside down and around more than would seem possible – without being purposeful.

Today's lesson is on "freedom of speech."

Let's be clear that the First Amendment didn't invent the notion of freedom of speech. Instead, the founders who wrote the Constitution and crafted the Bill of Rights understood our freedoms, our individual rights, our personal liberties were inalienable – meaning they derived not from government decree, but from the Creator of the universe and His natural laws.

The Constitution was designed not to create rights or privileges for Americans, but to guarantee that a future government would not trespass on our God-given freedoms.

Freedom of speech is one of those God-given rights. But the Congress of the United States, despite a clear prohibition against abridging that right, is indeed considering just such an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional action.

I'm talking about an effort to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" – abandoned in 1987.

The rule required radio and television stations to provide "balanced" coverage. But, like most efforts by government, it had exactly the opposite effect. Like most efforts by government, it also had very negative unintended consequences.

By requiring "balance," it mandated against controversy and free debate. In 1980, seven years before the "Fairness Doctrine" was abandoned, there were 75 talk-radio stations in America. Today, there are 1,300.

If the "Fairness Doctrine" is resurrected, that number will shrink, once again, as station owners decide it is simply too much trouble to ensure balance and "equal time" for every imaginable opposing opinion.

And that's precisely why some of the proponents of this legislation are pushing it. They want to see an end to the era of Rush Limbaugh. They want to silence the likes of Michael Savage. They would like to see the day when radio stations across America are afraid to take Joseph Farah's new radio show.

It might seem like this is a no-brainer – given President Bush has already suggested he would veto any bill that brings back the old, discredited, abandoned, speech-squelching Federal Communications Commission rules. But, believe it or not, Republicans in the House of Representatives are about 40 votes shy of the 146 needed to sustain the president's threatened veto. Likewise, opponents in the Senate are worried about having enough support simply to sustain a presidential veto. That's how shaky is our foundation of freedom of speech in this country right now.

A vote here or a vote there could end another constitutionally guaranteed, God-given right.

In other words, it's not just Democrats who want to end free speech as we know it in this country, the Republicans are ready to fall on that sword as well.

Could it be a result of misunderstanding? Could it be that our elected leaders have simply failed to read the First Amendment lately? Could it be they don't understand those simple words?

I don't think so. Both parties regularly violate the Constitution without so much as a second thought. No matter what the end result of this debate, it's clear the debate should not even be taking place – because Congress has no power to curtail free speech.

But let the people be aware of what is happening. When illegitimate authority rears its ugly head, it's time to take our country back.

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Quote of the Day by Holden Magroin

[G.Mason]

"When illegitimate authority rears its ugly head, it's time to take our country back."

Interesting.

Seems to this American that the "time" was over 140 years ago, and still counting.

[Noachian]

When illegitimate authority rears its ugly head, it's time to take our country back.

It is ironic that the very Congress to whom the people look to for protection of their rights, which are being dismantled by the Supreme Court, may now have to look to that unelected, and unaccountable, Supreme Court to protect us from our elected representatives. Irony indeed.

[GrandMoM]

BTTT

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

First Amendment freedom of the press allows those who know the truth to print the truth provided that they are willing and financially able to do so. And that has undoubtedly been the dominant factor in preserving whatever remains of our democratic republic. In fact, freedom of the press has gradually reduced the abuse of minorities which existed in America as it did anywhere else (indeed, elsewhere those who were not abused were--in gross population of the world still are--in the minority).

So on the great issue of protection of we-the-people from Saddam-style tyranny, freedom of the press has been a success. On smaller issues, however--even on the protection of freedom of the press itself--the record of the free press is mixed. What freedom of the press could not do--what it forbade the government to attempt--was to assure that those who were willing and financially able to print would know and choose to print the truth.

Unfortunately but inevitably, the big newspapers which survived in the competitive arena did so not by competing on relevance and reliability but by going along and getting along with their competitors. The big newspapers survived and grew by systematically herding together around a concensus which enabled all members to evade responsibility for editorial content. This consensus labeled itself "journalistic objectivity," and produced "codes of journalistic ethics" which sound as wonderful in theory--and are about as relevant to practice--as the old Soviet constitution.

"Objective journalism" was the establishment even before the advent of broadcasting.

"When illegitimate authority rears its ugly head, it's time to take our country back."

Congress long ago presumed to determine--through a "quasi-judicial" (read, "quasi-constitutional') agency--whose "speech" should be promoted "in the public interest." Those who received from that agency the grant of a presumption of veracity/significance have, not surprisingly, exploited it to shamelessly promote themselves.

The grant of a presumption of veracity/significance amounts, in the realm of public relations, to a title of nobility. That would have amazed and apalled the framers of the Constitution.

But it was remarkably simple to institute and gain public acceptance for the FCC and its creature, broadcast journalism. After all--apart from the direct and overt involvement of the government in this case--the self-same swindle had already been instituted by private enterprise in the realm of print.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[Labyrinthos]

Freedom of speech is one of those God-given rights. But the Congress of the United States, despite a clear prohibition against abridging that right, is indeed considering just such an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional action.

The author of this article needs to retake "First Amendment 101." Although the First Amendment guarantees free speech, it doesn't guarantee the right to broadcast over the airways. That requires a license from the FCC. As a quid pro quo for that license, the FCC and Congress can dictate terms and conditions with regard to broadcast content that might otherwise offend the first amendment (i.e., the seven dirty words). That being said, the Republicans in Congress ought to uphold the spirit of the First Amendment by blocking any effort to regulate the airways based upon programing content.

[Consort]

The 1st Amendment right to free speech is a worthy ideal, but it will never catch on and, in fact, we are steadily moving further away from that ideal. Any freedom of speech that might have existed has been negated by other laws of the land.

Saying what you believe can get you in hot water, can inhibit your career potential, can get you ostracised, can get you fired, can get you sued, can get you labeled as a bigot or hater or intolerant or homophobe, etc, can lose you an election, can scar you for life, can turn you into a "person of interest," can get you dead,......and...it's all legal.

[G.Mason]

Though I tend to agree with your post reply #5, [with he exception of ".......and are about as relevant to practice--as the old Soviet constitution........ " , which I have no knowledge of ] you confuse me.

Just why did you direct that at me?

I simply replied to a segment [last sentence of the article] which said ......."When illegitimate authority rears its ugly head, it's time to take our country back." , and indicated that that "time" was over 140 years ago.

I appologize in advance for this confusion on my part.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Though I tend to agree with your post reply #5, [with he exception of ".......and are about as relevant to practice--as the old Soviet constitution........ " , which I have no knowledge of ] you confuse me.

Just why did you direct that at me?

Well, as to the last, I picked up on the text you quoted from the article as a starting point, and I confess that my comment is not pointed at you in any other sense than that.

As to the relevance of codes of journalistic ethics, that is a long and much-vexed subject. And one on which I have such strong opinions as to be quite likely to pass Rush Limbaugh's "kook test" with flying colors.

The development of my understanding of the freedom of speech/press issue over the past 2 years since 9/11 is chronicled on a Free Republic thread here (all bumps gratefully accepted).

I think I demonstrate in that thread that journalism can have a hard left rudder without violating a code of "objectivity." And that that is systematically done, for fun and profit. If such be the case, why would I be impressed by codes of ethics? (BTW, one of the responses in the thread links to a number of such codes).

[Happy2BMe]

"When illegitimate authority rears its ugly head, it's time to take our country back."

Democrats? Republicans? Second Amendment (what's that?)

Aren't you missing somthing?

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

[G.Mason]

You sir, study journalism, I study revolution.

Regards

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I study revolution.

Then you could be interested in this. Makes you think what a (second) Hillary Administration could look like--and how it could end . . .

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You sir, study journalism, I study revolution.

Then, George, you will recall Tom's statement that "I study politics so my son can study war, and his son can study mathematics . . . and his son can study art."

And recall that Tom and Alex had quite a tussle back in the day--and that they waged their political battles in two newspapers which they sponsored. Journalism, sir, is politics--and politics precedes war because any army is a political creature. As Mr. Bush's generals illustrated by using the Internet to negotiate for the surrender of Mr. Hussain's generals.