free speech — VOICES for REASON

The Washington Post has come out swinging against Yale University Press for deciding to cut visual depictions of Mohammad from a new scholarly book on the Danish cartoons crisis. The book, Cartoons that Shook the World by Jytte Klausen, was purged not only of the 12 infamous cartoons, but also of an illustration from a children’s book and other artistic depictions of the prophet. None appear in the book, for fear that Islamists may launch attacks in response. The Post’s editorial observes that the cartoons are “inflammatory and tasteless” but notes that “it’s difficult to imagine a more legitimate place for them” than in a scholarly work. By refusing to publish the images, “Yale University Press is allowing violent extremists to set the terms of free speech.”

Yes, the decision is a victory for enemies of free speech, but everything in this stinging editorial could be directed right back at the Washington Post – and  practically every major newspaper in the West that refused to publish the Danish cartoons when that crisis erupted. Read the rest of this entry »

Apparently Dan Rather thinks Obama should not only make news, but remake the news. In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Rather called on the President to form a “nonpartisan, blue-ribbon commission to assess the state of the news as an institution and an industry and to make recommendations for improving and stabilizing both.”

While I disagree with Rather’s suggestion, he does raise one issue that anyone who follows the news should regard as tremendously important.

The big conglomerates that own most of America’s news media may have, at any given moment, multiple regulatory, procurement and legislative matters before various arms of the federal government; their interests, therefore, can often run contrary to the interests of the citizens whom journalism, at its best, is meant to serve. There is little incentive to report without fear or favoritism on the same government one is trying to lobby. Increasingly, the news we get–and, significantly, the news we don’t get–reflects this conflict of interests.

Virtually every decision a business makes today is controlled and influenced by the government.  Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve registered my pleasure at the news that FCC chairman-to-be Julius Genachowski has vowed not to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. But some of you may recall an article in which Ayn Rand seemed to support the Fairness Doctrine and even recommended extending it to the field of education. Let’s look at what she actually said.

Read the rest of this entry »

Virtually everyone recognizes that it would be an egregious violation of free speech for the government to dictate what the New York Times publishes. How, then, do supporters of the Fairness Doctrine try to reconcile the Doctrine with the First Amendment? Well, they say, unlike newspapers, the airwaves are a finite resource that needs to be rationed out in the “public interest.” Writes one supporter:

The Fairness Doctrine does not (and cannot constitutionally) apply to print media. When it comes to print media, everything is owned in private. . . . However, broadcast, cable and radio are quite different. . . . While the press is available to everyone, there are only so many frequencies upon which to broadcast, only so many ranges in the electromagnetic spectrum upon which to carry messages. Not everyone can broadcast. If they tried, static would be the result. That is why we have licenses. And even more importantly, the airwaves are not privately held by individuals, but are the collective property of we the people.

In other words, since the airwaves are finite, they must be publicly owned, and since they are publicly owned, it would be unfair to only let part of the public be heard, and therefore we need a Fairness Doctrine to make sure everyone gets a say.

But this whole argument rests on a bizarre non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that the airwaves are finite that they should be publicly owned.

Read the rest of this entry »

Can you imagine anyone advocating for the government to force the New York Times to publish columns by Ann Coulter? Probably not, yet that is the policy that supporters of the Fairness Doctrine would have imposed on radio and TV. Thankfully, in his confirmation hearing, Federal Communications Commissioner, Julius Genachowski, vowed not to resurrect the Doctrine.

I’m no fan of Genachowski–and he is no friend of free speech–but I wholeheartedly support his commitment to keep this noxious policy buried.

Read the rest of this entry »

In my last post, I pointed out how today’s opponents of free speech would do well to consider the arguments made by the greatest champions of that freedom: America’s Founding Fathers. There I discussed their arguments against restricting “blatantly false” ideas. Today I want to look at how the Founders addressed the second restriction on free speech advocated by citisven at the Daily Kos: the suppression of ideas that supposedly “incite violence.”

The Founders argued that although it’s true the government can stop people from “inciting violence,” ideas per se cannot incite violence. To be charged with inciting violence, one had to commit what they called an overt act.

Read the rest of this entry »

A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of visiting Montpelier, the former home of James Madison. There were conspicuously few visitors–and none of the others appeared to be under 70 years of age. It was emblematic, I think, of how little awareness there is of the Founding Fathers today. Sure, we still invoke them regularly, but how many Americans actually study their writings?

Contrary to conservatives, the primary value of studying the Founders is not to learn about our “great traditions.” It’s to discover great minds wrestling with important ideas. And if you think their arguments aren’t relevant to today, think again.

Read the rest of this entry »

Campaign finance restrictions are the most egregious violation of Americans’ right to free speech today. By capping contributions to political candidates, and even outlawing certain kinds of political ads close to Election Day, these restrictions place political speech under political control. So it’s disturbing to learn that Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, is on record supporting such restrictions. From the New York Times:

Read the rest of this entry »

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith recently announced that sixteen foreigners have been banned from entering the UK. That list includes American right wing talk radio host Michael Savage. According to Smith, “I think it’s important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards we have here.”

Apparently those values don’t include respect for free speech: Savage was included on the list because of his (admittedly obnoxious) ideas. According to Smith, “If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, Smith and her fellow bureaucrats have the right to dictate the standards and values that people must hold in order to enter (and, by implication, live in) Britain.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Supreme Court has now upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate fleeting expletives. The Court sidestepped the constitutional question of whether such restrictions are at odds with the First Amendment. Instead, it stuck to procedural questions and reversed the Court of Appeals’ finding that the FCC’s fleeting expletive policy was “arbitrary and capricious.”

I’ve argued elsewhere that “indecency” regulations are inherently “arbitrary and capricious” (albeit not, perhaps, in the technical legal sense). One question I often get, however, is: Who cares? Why get so worked up about a few restrictions on vulgar language?

Read the rest of this entry »