Free Speech in the US - Essay Example

Free Speech The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which was a case regarding the persistence of free speech is known to have sprouted several schools of thought, especially with regards to its conformity with the First Amendment rights. In his article, Stanley Fish elaborates the actual meaning of the First Amendment, and how its preservation serves battle ground for the propositions of both the majority and those who preferred to convey their dissent. It is common knowledge that the vindication of the majority led to the preservation of the “corporations and unions from using general treasury funds either to support or defeat a candidate in the 30 days before an election” (Fish) and overruled the minority. In fact, even President Obama took into notice the case and commented on it. However, Fish makes it clear early on in the article that it is not the case outcome that needs to be questioned but the decoding of the First Amendment, its purpose and factors for its implications. He explores the two very important ways in which the First Amendment is perceived and subsequently implied – one siding with the majority and the other arguing against it. Interestingly, he deems them both correct in their own ways as explained further. Both the opinions of Justice Kennedy as well as Justice Stevens are put forward with their perceptions, driving out the arresting nature of the case. Fish compares both the expressions of Justice Kennedy by quoting his word “chills” and Justice Stevens’ “corrupts”. The most striking thing about the article perhaps, is the potent choice of words with which Fish adorns his opinions. These opinions are further contrasted at the marked explanations of these citations. The word “chills” refers to complete cessation of free speech from “entering the marketplace of ideas”. “Corrupts”, on the other hand refers to the interspersing of ideas that involve the corporate sector into politics will render, resulting in the hampering of the very purpose for which free speech was advocated. Whilst Kennedy believes in the right of free speech and expression to be preserved, Stevens promotes “the free flow of information so crucial to the health of a democratic society” (Fish). It is interesting to note that Stevens provides sufficient reason for his theory to be backed up, especially by citing Theodore Roosevelt regarding the ban of law on corporate interference where politics is concerned. This may be due to the fact that Kennedy’s adherence towards the written code is in itself the most powerful reason supporting his cause. Fish further highlights the causes of distress between Judge Kennedy and Judge Stevens’ beliefs. The minorities’ primary concern that influx of wealth to support the electoral process would metaphorically convert “campaign expenditures into speech and therefore into a matter that merits First Amendment scrutiny” (Fish) speaks volumes regarding his apprehensions about the majority’s opinions. It rationalizes the fact that corporate meddling will eventually result in vote purchasing, and hamper voting by free will. It would also result in “the fear that corporations and unions, with their huge treasuries, will crowd out smaller voices by purchasing all the air time and print space”, thus minimalizing the chances of those who are deemed less important by the financial sector to get their fair share of glory throughout the elections. Simultaneously, the fact that Kennedy does not favor promotion of corruption, merely wants to concentrate on the rights of free speech to flourish is touched upon, with a slight kink in the idea as well – that of not expecting this kind of a situation to ever end up becoming corrupt. Fish’s noteworthy usage of the words “make the proper noises” with regards to Kennedy support the fact that ideally, and as a human being, Fish does not agree with the fact that freedom of speech is necessary for the preservation of the First Amendment rights. Even though Fish himself later explains that Kennedy tries to foster the opinion of universality of corporations, by calling them “citizens” and thus the same rules need to be applied to them as others, the tone and usage of Fish’s words make his distaste of these ideals eminent. Whilst Stevens conveys the core of his ideals to be centered on corruption, Fish argues that even if this line of thought were to be followed, it would at some point end up in the way the majority has proposed due to the fact that the majority’s opinions were perceived as something of “surpassing value” by the masses. Similarly, if undue exploitation were to result due to the support of electoral commission participants by those with “deep pockets”, it would not be as influential as the dissenting party states because voter’s will have the right to think for themselves – due to the preservation of the First Amendment rights. This perhaps, is Kennedy’s masterstroke. His generalization serves as an important reminder that the aspects of this argument are multi-faceted and cannot be dealt with by stringent monitoring. Besides, Chief Justice Roberts agrees with the majority, citing examples from cases such as that of “Buckley v. Valeo (1976)” to serve as an example of refutation of government involvement in issues that were already dealing with freedom. Fish, on the other hand gives the example of Oliver Wendell Holmes, his case “Gitlow v. New York (1925) “ which promoted freedom of speech no matter what, as well as his theory of “reverse Gresham’s law” and his opinion that law should not impede any entity’s freedom – whether it be a mere thought process or an actual form of exchange. Fish also mentions “epistemological optimism of Justice Brandeis” as a further proof of Kennedy’s victory in the case. Hence, democratic judgments leave both the good and the bad decisions entirely in the hands of the people. Stevens on the other hand, argues that bad decisions such as these will play the role of “noxious weeds” and serve to further hinder first amendment values. This establishes him as a “consequentialist” (someone who prefers to comment and decide on rules keeping in mind the consequences it would bear), apart from his views being considered conservatory, accentuating his concerns regarding the resulting negativity that will affect the country’s political standing. Through the aforementioned argument it becomes clear that there are only two ways in which the First Amendment can be perceived and used. One promotes the idea of complete freedom – based entirely on the essence of the First Amendment statute; the other deems corporate stricture necessary so as to impose a systematic and influence-free environment for the voters to think freely. However, Fish explores a rather remarkable kink in Kennedy’s armor whilst referring to principles of the majority being slightly dubious because it “upholds the disclosure requirements of the statute it is considering”. This, coupled with Justice Thomas’ statement against this particular point that did not conform with that of Kennedy further establishes how even though principally and logically, he might be correct, yet the disclosure requirements make it seem questionable. Consequentially, neither of the two views at which the First Amendment is being looked at is complete in itself. Fish ultimately argues that these are two parallel views that show no signs of ever agreeing with each other. It is also evident through his simulations and his dissecting of these two opinions, that the majority will continue favoring freedom and the consequentialists, favoring the prohibition of corporate interference. Nonetheless, he establishes the fact that his personal views correspond to that of the minority, but as a subject matter he feels that Kennedy has won the race by large. This is occurring, despite the fact that Kennedy’s opinions are somewhat strained by the factor promoting uphold of disclosure in certain aspects. Therefore, Fish claimed having enjoyed the argument since he personally favored Stevens’ opinions, but as a teacher had to agree that Kennedy’s opinions are arguments were near-flawless as well. Thus, Fish proves the most important point – the First Amendment is not just present to cater to certain individuals’ needs, but also to make important decisions when need be, and in order to preserve the freedom of the citizens of Unites States. In this case, Fish explains that the since the established First Amendment was created to guard everyone’s rights, exploiting it in a court of law would invalidate its very essence. Fish also brings to light the fact that if certain strict measures are not taken in order to protect the sanctity of the political scenario from the amalgamations of finance, it may result in an easily manipulated people, destroying the outcome that freedom is supposed to bring. He ends up comparing this to a television drama where there is no getting out of, and ends on a light handed note, with knowledge of the fact that this baseless argument will perhaps continue till the end of times. Works Cited Fish, Stanley. “What is the First Amendment For?.” Nytimes.com. Blogs. 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 18 Jun. 2014. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/what-is-the-first-amendment-for/ Read More