Free Speech/Free Press/Free Society
By Hank Silverberg
It is my humble opinion that the words above are the most important ever written on Earth. The words are direct and concise. Some parts of the U.S. Constitution are ambiguous and open for interpretation, but this part is pretty clear.
Our Founding Fathers were quite familiar with the suppression of both free speech and religion throughout history. It wasn't just King George III in England in their century. It was also Oliver Cromwell in the 16th Century and the Spanish Inquisition of the 15th Century which provided good examples of what the suppression of ideas and free speech could do, and did do.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but the first word in the First Amendment, "Congress," specifically indicates the concern is about suppression by the Government against free speech by a free people. It does NOT deal with corporations or other private entities, and no court in the United States has ever interpreted it any other way.
As a resident of the United States you have the right to hand out literature, make a speech or peaceably assemble on a public street corner without intimidation from police or any other government entity. (Peaceably is a keyword here.)
But there are some limitations. For example, the U.S.Supreme Court ruled in Schenck vs. U.S. that Charles Schenck could be convicted under the Espionage Act for passing out leaflets protesting the draft during World War One. Although the concept was overturned later on, it did produce an often used quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes about shouting fire in a crowded theater, creating a clear and present danger. That ruling is interpreted more specifically today on national security issues.
But in general, your right to protest and assemble in public places is intact and sacrosanct.
.
The local shopping mall though, is private property, not a public place and the owner has a right to control what is distributed on his grounds.They can kick you out if they don't like what you are saying or doing, like not wearing a mask during the Covid-19 pandemic, for example.
I am afraid Donald Trump doesn't understand this. He apparently has not read the First Amendment because he is now trying to penalize Twitter, a private company, for trying to control what appears on their platform. It's their property, not too much different than a shopping mall. They can control it. And since they are a private company and not a public entity, the Constitutional protections of free speech really don't apply on Twitter, Facebook or any on-line social platform. So, the President's cry of "censorship" on social media is ludicrous. If someone is saying bad things in your house, you can kick them out. That's your right to control your property, not censorship.
There are different rules for newspapers, TV stations, Radio news, cable networks, and on-line news services. They do control what they print or broadcast. The basic ethics of journalism from both the Radio Television Digital News Association and the Society of Professional Journalists say they have to provide fair and balanced coverage, but no LAW says that they have to.
(Read the codes of ethics for RTDNA and SPJ here:
There are libel and slander laws that protect private citizens, but public figures like the President, members of Congress and celebrities have a very narrow gap for such suits. They have to prove not only that the information was wrong, but that the news agency knew it was wrong and printed or broadcast it out of actual malice. That is hard to prove and is rarely used.
I find it somewhat ridiculous that the biggest purveyor of disinformation in the United States is crying about being called out for spreading lies. He has more venues to get out his message (fake or otherwise) than anyone else in the country. He can call a news conference, ask the TV networks for air time (they don't have to give it to him), or produce videos and podcasts that can easily be uploaded to thousands of friendly on-line entities that will promote almost anything, including dangerous conspiracy theories, racism and division.
Unfortunately for Americans, we have to put up with a man who simply can't take the criticism. He should take Harry Truman's advice: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
The other angle on this issue is the tweet that touched off Trump's rant. Twitter put up a caution notice that the tweet was advocating violence. I will not re-post it here because of its incendiary nature. But basically, he threatened those few in Minneapolis and elsewhere who have abused their right to protest, and decided instead to loot their own neighborhoods and popular business districts. Trump implied they should be shot. It clearly shows Trump's total lack of empathy for those oppressed by racism, and an authoritarian attitude about dissent. He wants to counter violence with more violence, in direct contrast to how a real leader should react. Instead of trying to calm things down, or do a nationally broadcast speech calling for calm, he hunkered down at the White House, even spending some time in the bunker as protests grew across the street at Lafayette Park.
During the riots of 1967, brought on by poverty, racial discrimination and the unfair application of the draft, which I remember vividly, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a champion of non-violent protest, said:
"A riot is the language of the unheard."
(You can listen to his words here)
That is important to remember, as protests over excessive use of force and criminal acts by some individual police officers continue across the country, and turn violent. They are perhaps more poignant now because we as a country are still in the middle of a pandemic, which has killed more than 100,000 people and has been particularly harsh in minority communities which were already suffering through bad health care and poor housing.
It's time that we lift the country up, hear the "unheard," and act on their grievances instead of threatening to shoot them.
Then their is this:
The third part of the First Amendment deals with Freedom of Religion. Here the Founding Fathers were also thinking about the sins of the past like the Inquisition and the
 |
| (Translation: Repair the World) |
Protestant Reformation. They simply did not want religion to get in the way of our basic freedoms as it had for centuries in other places.
It's not just about freedom to worship as you wish, though many think it is. It's also about freedom NOT to worship or to avoid a religion if you want to. Some have complained during the pandemic that closing churches violated their religious freedom, though no one has been prevented from praying when they wanted. But the first Right defined in our founding documents is the right to live. Gathering in large groups threatened (and possibly still does) our very existence, and temporary limits were necessary. Justice Holmes also wrote in a free speech case that "your right to extend your fist ends just before my nose." At this time, gathering in large groups like church services or not wearing a mask under current rules, extends right into my nostrils and the nostrils of our neighbors. The Supreme Court seems to agree, ruling late last week that decisions about when to allow church services during the pandemic is not a Constitutional issue. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the majority writing about the current restrictions in California that "they should not be subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary, which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people."
So for a while, stop complaining about the limits on your movement. Oppression is not your Governor asking you to wear a mask or stay home from church for a few weeks. Oppression is a cop's knee pressed into the back of your neck so hard that you die begging for air. Get some perspective, please.
Of Note:
The threat to a Free Press continues to mount across the country. U.S. Press Freedom Tracker https://pressfreedomtracker.us/ says there were more than 100 press freedom violations during this past week's protests that included reporters arrested, pepper sprayed, tear gassed, hit with rubber bullets and assaulted. Many were targeted.Here are two examples that you can see for yourself:
In Louisville, Kentucky, the home state of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, there were more protests over the shooting of a black EMT in her own home by police entering with a "no-knock" warrant. During the demonstrations, police had asked a news crew from local station WAVE, which was one the air live, to move away from their police line. Apparently, the crew didn't move fast enough for one officer, who can be seen in the video turning his gun and shooting pepper bullets right at the reporter and then at the rest of her crew. It's clear this is not mistaken identity. The reporter was hit with the pepper bullets but not seriously harmed. Click on the link to see the video and judge for yourself. She's wearing a yellow vest and holding a microphone.
It is not the only incident. Minnesota State Police, who were called into Minneapolis after the first night of rioting, arrested a reporter. Omar Jimenez was on the air live near the scene of the previous night's rioting when he was approached by a state trooper who placed him under arrest. Shortly thereafter, his producer and cameraman were also arrested. You can watch it played out on the link below. Jimenez offers to move away from the police line, something I have seen done many times, and have done myself when requested to do so by police. But instead, the police cuffed him. He was released later. The Governor apologized for the incident, but the state police compounded the mistake by lying about their reasons for arresting the men.
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
It was clear who these people were. They had media credentials, thousands of dollars worth of broadcast equipment, they identified themselves right away and offered to move. The police knew exactly who they were arresting--a reporter with dark skin--just doing his job.
There was no imminent danger to the police or the news crew that would mitigate the action in either of these events.
There were more incidents like this across the country, and several where protesters or looters also attacked the media. (See my blog from 5/17/20 "Killing the Messenger".)
Reporters know they can be injured covering such events that often get out of hand. I got a police baton in the stomach and was knocked to the ground during the George W. Bush Inauguration protests in Washington in 2001 when I got caught on the wrong side of the police line covering the story for WTOP . I have written before how my camerawoman was shoved to the ground and injured by protesters while covering the Freddie Grey demonstrations for WUSA9 in Baltimore in 2015. And this week, CNN's headquarters in Atlanta was vandalized by protesters outside. But reporters do not expect to be assaulted by the police.
This kind of intimidation is not that rare at crime and protest scenes. Police often don't want the media to see what they are doing. But you have to wonder about the arrogance of the police claiming they didn't know that either crew was the Press. This, too, is a threat to the First Amendment and the freedom we all enjoy.
Some re-training is in order in Minnesota and Louisville, but I suspect part of the problem is a President who continually calls the Press "enemies of the people."
When it comes right down to it, what is happening on the streets of many American cities this week is not about the disgusting police murder of George Floyd, or the "Black Lives Matter" movement. It's not even pent up anger over skyrocketing unemployment and restrictions necessitated by the pandemic. They are just the latest flare-up in a long running saga. This time it's also about a dysfunctional federal government which has neglected EVERYTHING for the past three and a half years, and has fed itself on existing divisions like institutional racism and income disparity instead of trying to fix them. Much of that can be traced to the failed leadership of one man, Donald J. Trump. But he is not totally to blame. Congress has also been dysfunctional because much of the Republican party seems oblivious to the nation's pain. Democratic leaders seem totally focused on regaining power instead of trying to stop the bleeding. We have seen this before--1861 and 1968 come to mind, and it was not pretty. Please stay calm. We can fix this.
News Notes:
There was at least one high note this week.
America returned to space with the Cape Canaveral launch of a privately built space craft with two NASA astronauts on board. It was the first space launch from U.S. soil in nine years, since the end of the Space Shuttle program. The Falcon 9 craft is unique with it's first stage rocket landing right back on earth while the capsule was just reaching orbit. The first stage can be re-used in the future, producing a huge savings in the price tag of space travel.
The astronauts, 49 year-old Robert Behnken, and 53 year-old Douglas Hurley, have joined three other astronauts on the International Space Station for a few weeks before they return to Earth. https://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html
The launch was thrilling to watch and a reminder of the early days of space travel in the 1960's and 70's that eventually put 12 men on the moon during six moon landings.
Those missions also came at a time of turmoil--the Vietnam War and racial unrest. But here is one big difference to note: The United States spent $28 billion (283 billion in today's dollars) to put men on the moon between 1960 and 1973, all at taxpayer's expense. This mission, financed by Elon Musk and his Space X Corp, cost the taxpayers much less. Space X has contracts worth about $12 billion, of which $5.5 billion comes from either NASA or the U.S. Air Force. Since the Space Shuttles were mothballed in 2011, NASA has been paying the Russians $80 million for each U.S. astronaut it takes to the space station.
Space X is competing against at least two other private companies to put astronauts in space, and may eventually offer rides to anyone who can afford it. A tourist ticket to the International Space Station would cost about $35 million. I'd love to go, but I don't think I could justify the expense to my wife.
(Your comments and suggestions are welcome)
Copies of my book "The Campaign" are available sending me an email at HankSilverberg.Com for instructions on how to get a signed copy at a reduced price. )
Or you can get one at: Amazon
Or at Barnes and Noble https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-campaign-hank-silverberg/1126429796?ean=9781647532185
Comments
Post a Comment
Reactive comments are welcome. Please keep it civil. Any direct attack on the blogger or those who post is not welcome and will be deleted.