Free Speech is Essential in a Free Country - Essay Example

Free Speech is Essential in a Free Country The First Amendment to the Constitution is the most recognized and recited of the Bill of Rights within both political and social realms because it is the most essential in preserving the uniquely American freedom the Founding Fathers envisioned. The First Amendment effectively guarantees free speech, freedom of the press and religion. 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 First Amendment is the glue that holds the countries hard-fought-for freedoms intact. This discussion examines two aspects of free speech in practical terms, the importance of the press and the issues surrounding the internet. The First Amendment 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 considered a free press one of if not the most important aspect in the formation of a free and democratic society. Though much of American law is patterned from the English legal system, the Founders wanted to distinguish the newly formed government from England where the press was tightly 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. The protection of confidential sources is a vital element of a truly free press but this right is only partially protected by the First Amendment according to Supreme Court rulings. The First Amendment provides journalists with a limited privilege not to disclose their sources or information to litigants who seek to use that information in court. “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 Americans believe the press should be able to keep all sources confidential and that anything less violates the intent of the Founders. A majority of states do as well. More than half have passed legislation commonly known as ‘Shield Laws’ which extend this privilege to journalists. 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 such as the Watergate scandal would never have come to light. Whether or not a journalist has the right to protect the identity of their sources is a constitutional issue that remains controversial. As guaranteed by the First Amendment, 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.S., 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). The founders of the nation created the government of and thus answerable to the people. Journalists are the conduit that carries this right of the people. The Watergate scandal 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. 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 that provides Americans their unique style of freedom does indeed work intended by the Founders as evidenced by the First Amendment. (Krimsky, 1997). The role of the media is critical to the preservation of freedom itself. The Constitutional right to 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). 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. America probably needs the freedom of the press today more so than in any other time in its history. The current presidential administration has stripped away freedoms at an unprecedented rate and ignored global and domestic concerns. The nation is involved in an illegal and immoral war and politicians are as corrupt as ever. 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 press and the constitutionally guaranteed freedom it enjoys in this nation, democracy could not endure. If they were to overstep their powers, the American citizens would not know if it were not dedicated journalists who consider it their patriotic duty to guard the interests of the public. The internet is not regulated. As efficient and enormously informative as the web is, its content is not overseen as are other communications mediums such as television and radio. It is a groundbreaking new technology that has amalgamated societies of the country and the world and introduced the concept of truly free expression and the perception that nothing is taboo. Everything is exposed and available at everyone’s literal finger-tip. The Internet has no physical, ethical or moral boundaries. Lawmakers and legal scholars generally use legal precedents from broadcast media decisions as the model for definitions of indecency and obscenity when developing regulations governing the Internet. The moral dilemma generally surrounds minor’s uncensored access to adult material. Anyone with internet access can publish an opinion, joke, photo or movie for all to see. Adults are better prepared than children to judge what type of information is useful, legitimate and potentially harmful. Children are more likely than adults to fall prey to predators that lure them with kind, understanding words or to, for example, misinterpret sadistic pornography for normal sexual relations. Federal, state and local laws limit access to materials such as pornography but anyone, young or old can access this or anything else on the internet. We have local, state, and federal laws governing children’s access to pornography, but these laws are unenforceable and thus meaningless with the advent of the internet. A teenager cannot walk into a video store and rent an adult movie but can log on and quickly find many thousands of adult movies that can be viewed, downloaded and stored or even sold to other teenagers (Emmans, 2000). The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 made it a federal crime to display ‘indecent material’ on any computer network unless the website owner utilizes ‘effective’ techniques to control access of that material to minors. This law appears to be a reasonable compromise that protects free speech and prevents children from accessing objectionable material, but in practice and effect, outlaws free speech from the Internet. The Internet allows everyone the freedom to connect with other people and suppliers worldwide but an economical means for individuals to restrict their art or thoughts to the eyes of children is yet to be developed. Because of this lack of security technology, across the board prohibition is justified under the law, a concept that is in itself considered unlawful by a strict definition of the First Amendment of the Constitution which unambiguously guarantees the right to free speech (Pilon, 1994). Supreme Court decisions have consistently found that the First Amendment does not apply to obscene communications and have allowed communities to establish their own restrictions regarding what is obscene. The court in Miller v. California explained that if the ‘average’ person would describe the work as obscene or if it showed or expressed patently offensive sexual conduct without ‘serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,’ the material is correctly defined as obscene (Mason, 2000). The community of the World Wide Web has combined to establish what is and what is not acceptable. Neither a single government alone nor the coalition of all can hope to effectively restrict such a universally encompassing phenomenon such as the Internet. In addition, the associations and comparisons made of the Internet to the broadcast media when formulating laws is flawed as is the perceived right to restrict its content. Before cable and satellite television brought effective child protection techniques within a click or two for parents, children could access the network television stations at will and censorship was widely accepted as a necessary governmental responsibility. However, Internet access is not as universally accessible in the same way radio airwaves are. A person does not accidentally look up a Web site the way they might accidentally hear something on network television or radio. No law regarding internet indecency passes constitutional inspection no matter how vigilantly crafted or well intended. “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (“Olmstead”, 1928). The term indecent is vague, confusing and destined for continual debate and evolution. Local judiciaries that try to define it and build moral parameters excluding what is currently perceived indecent from a source based on a worldwide scale is impossible and unwarranted. The biggest casualty to free speech is the individual citizen’s right to make morality decisions and be able to speak freely to others in all regions of the globe. The CDA cannot legitimately allege any jurisdiction over the Internet as it might the broadcast media because software has enabled controlled access to minors. Most Internet service providers offer inexpensive or free access to child protection filters. Just as the government was publicizing the possibilities of the information superhighway, it was also moving to censor it. The Internet, at least for a short time, had provided many peoples of the world, including the U.S., genuine freedom of speech. Communicating via the computer allows everyone to create any type of subject matter and to distribute it instantly on a global scale. This remarkable progression in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is a result of the ease of access to the author. Laws that increase regulations and its associated costs to the common webmaster jeopardize this developing modernization and globalization of public dialogue. The CDA will add to the cost of internet speech which, in effect, prohibits the freedom of speech. Government cannot legitimize exercising control over internet content which its users are able to control. The First Amendment gives us the freedom to think and express those thoughts. 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 White House and could control information, a not too far-fetched possibility given the political reality of the day. The U.S. would become a dictatorship whose citizens would be told how to think and what not to say by the government. This scenario is what the Founders were trying to avoid by penning the words of the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment, America would be a much different place and it must be adhered to if the nation is to remain the shining beacon of freedom for the world. Censorship cannot be allowed within press outlets, the internet or any other form of communication if this society is to be free as the framers of the Constitution intended. References Center for Democracy and Governance. (June 1999). “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. Accessed April 18, 2008 from “(The) Constitution: The Bill of Rights.” (2006). Cornell Law School. Accessed April 18, 2008 from Emmans, Cindy. (Spring, 2000). “Colloquium: Internet Ethics.” Technos Quarterly. Vol. 9, N. 1. Accessed April 18, 2008 from Goodale, James C. (February 1997). “The First Amendment and Freedom Of The Press.” eJournal USA. Vol. 2, No. 1. Accessed April 18, 2008 from Kann, Peter R. (December 13, 2006). “The Power of the Press.” Wall Street Journal. Accessed April 18, 2008 from Krimsky, George A. (1997). “The Role of the Media in a Democracy.” A Free Press: Rights and Responsibilities. United States Information Agency. Mason, Jeffrey D. (1973) “Mason Miller v. California -The Court Confronts Obscenity.” The Millennium Fool. (November 27, 2000). “Olmstead v. United States.” (Decided June 4, 1928). Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University. Accessed April 18, 2008 from < http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.html> Pilon, Roger. (1994). “A Modest Proposal on ‘Must-Carry’, the 1992 Cable Act, and Regulation Generally: Go Back to Basics.” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law. Journal 41. Read More