First Amendment Rights

The First Amendment of the Constitution has come under fire of late from a lot of different places.

It says: 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.

I am particularly concerned about the abridging of the freedom of speech and the press. The Supreme Court has before it the case of Citizens United v. FEC. According to Walter Williams, a professor of Economics at George Mason University who wrote in PA Pundits, a blog:

“During the last presidential campaign, a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute documentary, “Hillary: The Movie.” Citizens United wanted to pay for its documentary to be shown on home video-on-demand, and for ads promoting the movie to be shown in key states while the former New York senator was competing with Barack Obama for the Democrat presidential nomination. Federal judges said the movie should be regulated by McCain-Feingold, and that ruling was argued Tuesday before the Supreme Court.”

It seems to me that anyone has the right to say and publish - in whatever form - whatever s/he wants to. The Constitution clearly guarantees this. It bothers me, however, that the people with the most money have the most access to spreading their ideas across a large spectrum of society, including those who do not or cannot think independently and clearly.

And the people with the most money, unfortunately, seem to be the ones who have the most extreme and deeply held opinions. That is a matter of economics. It holds true for people who are enthusiastic Republicans and support the right, as well as those who support more liberal ideas and contribute to MoveOn.org. Both of those groups manage to draw people who contribute. People who feel deeply about something contribute money for it. If this were not true, Rush Limbaugh, who spews hate and half- (or quarter-) truths would not be making upwards of $37m each year.

Those who are more middle of the road, however, who see more than one side of a question, who consider and think more deeply and broadly, are less likely to have extreme opinions. And therefore less likely to contribute to either extreme. And there aren’t many groups that collect money for the BMP, Broad Middle Politics.

Jonah Goldberg writing OpEd for the Chicago Tribune about the same film documentary on Hillary Clinton on April 2, wrote:

“Just last week, the Obama administration argued before the Supreme Court that it has no principled constitutional problem with banning books.”

He went on to explain, “Several justices asked the deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, if there would be any constitutional reason why the ban on documentaries and ads couldn't be extended to books carrying similar messages. Stewart, speaking for a president who once taught constitutional law, said Congress can ban books "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy" for a candidate and was supported, even slightly, with corporate money.

“Such advocacy, Stewart conceded, could amount to negatively mentioning a politician just once in a 500-page book put out by a mainstream publisher.”

This is a potential attack on our freedom of speech and of the press of an enormous magnitude.

In one more noteworthy news story, Notre Dame University has been widely criticized for asking President Barack Obama to speak at Commencement next month.

The criticism is that he advocates policies contrary to doctrine the church requires a Catholic Institution to espouse.

As with the earlier example of the Hillary Clinton documentary, there is a large group trying to put a filter on what we can see or hear.

Our freedoms of speech is strengthened when we can say what we want, with few exceptions. These include Justice Holmes’ note about crying Fire in a crowded theatre, and slander and libel of private citizens with untrue statements. Public figures are exempt, however, and President Obama could well be vilified because of the positions he takes that are contrary to the Roman Catholic Church.

The airing of HIllary: The Movie, I suspect, would have produced more heat than light, and that isn’t necessarily a good thing. But like Obama’s commencement address, it could cause discussion, and any examination of ideas and public figures seems to me to be a good idea, one that strengthens our right to free speech and a free press.

But we have the means to keep our constitution strong, even at a grass-roots level. The KKK held a white power rally recently, only to be met with a bunch of clowns who infuriated them by holding up signs that said things like Wife Power; White Flour and throwing flour in the air; and ending up with Tight Shower. The KKK organizers tried to attack the clowns, and were arrested. In the meantime their rally lost all power, white or not, and fell apart. Click here for the whole story.

As always, feel free to comment below. My thanks to my friend Myron for suggesting this topic.