Free Speech is Essential in a Free Country - Essay Example

Free Speech is Essential in a Free Country One of the things we value most in a free society is believing that our media channels are free to report the news to us without fear of being silenced by the government or prosecuted for saying something true but unpleasant. This understanding is based upon the values of free speech that remain important throughout the modern world. Freedom of the press is an extension to the freedom of speech concept. A free press is essential to the idea of democracy and has been accurately described as the ‘Fourth Estate’ of government. As the three branches of government act to check and balance each other, the press watches over them all. The concept of free speech and freedom of the press is therefore the glue that holds the country’s hard-fought-for freedoms intact. Political correctness is a term used to refer to the care in speaking that emerged in the 70s, gained strength in the 80s and remains an important topic in media relations today. When it first started being used, “Folks on the left used the term to dismiss views that were seen as too rigid and, also, to poke fun at themselves for the immense care they took to neither say nor do anything that might offend the political sensibilities of others” (Bliefuss, 2007). This half-joking sense of sensitivity in communication has since blown up into a very serious threat to our rights of free speech and free media. When considering whether we truly want political correctness as a guiding principle in our media, it is important that we take the time to more definitively define the term and its application. The importance of free speech and free media is highlighted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states “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.” (“The Constitution”, 2006). The Founding Fathers of America considered a free press one of, if not the most, important aspects in the formation of a free and democratic society. A great deal of their emphasis on this point stemmed from their perception that the media channels that then existed in England, after whom they patterned much of their legal code, was rigidly censored. Journalists who questioned the King’s decisions were often jailed or worse. The Founders knew that if the press were not free, the country would not be either. However, political correctness is discovered to be a means of quieting the press, controlling what it says and reducing our ability to accurately communicate because of the words it continuously removes from the lexicon and the shifting nature of definition. “For the first time in our history, [citizens] have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic” (Lind, 2000). The dangerous nature of political correctness when applied to the media setting is perhaps no where more evident than in the process of reporting on the news. From limiting what we say to being forced to point out where we received that information, the concepts of political correctness point to a path of much greater restriction and organizational control than we, as Americans, would like to consider. A free press serves to enlighten the public regarding governmental activities. The value of uncensored information to the continuance of democracy cannot be understated. In a society that governs itself, such as the U.K., the ability to make knowledgeable decisions based upon unfiltered information and open discussions is vital to its continued existence. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln articulated this sentiment as well as anyone when he stated, “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe” (Krimsky, 1997). The author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of America’s first University and third president Thomas Jefferson believed that liberty depended upon a free press and to limit this fundamental freedom would be to lose it altogether, along with it the freedoms of the nation’s citizens. According to Jefferson, “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right” (Kann, 2006). These principles applied in the US are equally valued here in the UK. Journalists are the conduit that carries this right of the people. It might be argued that simply limiting some of the language one might use does not constitute limiting the subjects that can be discussed, but the practice of political correctness as it has been discovered on college campuses reveal the falsity of that assumption. “The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted ‘victims’ groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment” (Lind, 2000). Through the guise of political correctness, outspoken activists and media leaders can be effectively and sometimes even completely silenced by the simple accusation of a misplaced word. With the limitations of political correctness widely accepted, it is not a far stretch to foresee greater restrictions on the protection of sources or other elements of free press that would bring it under strict governmental control. The protection of confidential sources is a vital element of a truly free press but this right is under constant threat both here and in America. The ability for journalists to protect their sources is a constant battle waged on both sides of the Atlantic as sometimes uncomfortable and damaging information comes to light. “In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme Court held that reporters did not have a privilege to refuse to answer a grand jury’s questions that directly related to criminal conduct that the journalists observed and wrote about” (Goodale, 1997). The overwhelming majority of people living in the free world believe the press should be able to keep all sources confidential and that anything less violates our ability to discover the truth. Sources of information are essential to the work of the press. Some sources wish to remain confidential so as not to jeopardize their position. Without these sources, government misdoings would never have come to light. The Watergate scandal in America which exposed criminal activity by the highest level of government and caused the downfall of the Nixon administration was uncovered by investigative journalists employed by the Washington Post newspaper who were able to gain this information by protecting their sources and not being overly concerned about adhering to strict boundaries of political correctness in their reporting. Those journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, through great effort and perseverance, discovered and publicized the misdoings of the leader of the nation. They did so even though they were under enormous pressures including threats of physical and professional harm. They are true patriots and proved the system can work with perseverance and effort (Krimsky, 1997). However, had the question of political correctness been applied to any of their work at any point in their history, one or both of these journalists would have been quickly and effectively silenced without having had the opportunity to expose the tremendous crime occurring in the nation’s heart. Whether or not a journalist has the right to protect the identity of their sources is an issue that remains threatened under the prevailing ideology of political correctness in all media reporting. The role of the media is critical to the preservation of freedom itself. The free world’s belief in freedom of expression and of the press includes the un-infringed right to investigate and publicly announce information or to espouse opinion. An effective media outlet must have editorial independence and serve a diversity of public interests uncontrolled by government or ideological influence. An adversarial relationship sometimes exists between mass media and the government regarding the public’s right to know balanced against matters of national security (Center for Democracy and Governance 1999 p. 5). Under the guise of political correctness, though, “We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In ‘hate crimes,’ we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it” (Lind, 2000). While it seems undeniable that we would want a certain degree of sensitivity and fairness in reporting, this should not necessarily be a limiting or legislated process in which reporters are fired as a result of a slip of the tongue. Despite the criticisms of the press, would anyone in this country actually want press to stop doing its job? Journalists, as part of a free press, serve to enlighten the public regarding governmental activities as well as other items of common interest, often placing themselves in harm’s way for the benefit of others. The stress of this position may sometimes cause a journalist to accidentally use a word recently determined to be un-PC and thus lose his job when he or she has otherwise performed admirably in delivering the important stories of the day. The press should be held to the high standard they set for themselves and revered and recognized for the vital function they provide the country without the legislative interference of governmental agencies or the extreme censorship of a constantly shifting ideology. Without the press and the constitutionally guaranteed freedom it enjoys in this nation, democracy could not endure. Our society and the values its set has given us the freedom to think and express those thoughts that occur to us. While it is expected that we will do so in a way that acknowledges the humanity in others regardless of race, creed or sexual preference, it seems impossible and undesirable to restrict people from communicating about these issues by restricting words from their vocabulary to the point where communication is impossible. In order to think effectively and act appropriately, one must have credible information which is supplied by a free press. Imagine if a right-wing evangelist were in the Prime Minister’s office and could control information, a not too far-fetched possibility given the political reality of the Bush administration. The U.K. would become a dictatorship whose citizens would be told how to think and what not to say by the government. Censorship cannot be allowed within press outlets, the internet or any other form of communication if this society is to be free and the push to enforce the continuously changing rules of Political Correctness upon the communication channels of our media outlets is nothing more than a push to place a gag order upon them, reducing their ability to inform the nation and increasing the likelihood of a less free future. Works Cited Bleifuss, Joel. “A Politically Correct Lexicon.” In These Times. (February 21, 2007). April 22, 2009 Center for Democracy and Governance. “The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach.” Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and Research. Washington D.C.: US Agency for International Development, (June 1999). April 22, 2009 “(The) Constitution: The Bill of Rights.” Cornell Law School. (2006). April 22, 2009 Goodale, James C. (February 1997). “The First Amendment and Freedom Of The Press.” eJournal USA. Vol. 2, No. 1, (February 1997). Kann, Peter R. “The Power of the Press.” Wall Street Journal. (December 13, 2006). April 22, 2009 Krimsky, George A. “The Role of the Media in a Democracy.” A Free Press: Rights and Responsibilities. United States Information Agency, 1997. Lind, Bill. “The Origins of Political Correctness.” Accuracy in Academia. (2000). April 22, 2009 < http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html> Read More