Civil Liberties Class - Entry 3

Knowledge of the early history of the United States provides some sense of what the framers meant by the words “speech” and “press.” We know that the framers were thinking in terms of protecting liberty, which at that time meant “freedom from oppressive government.” Since they took steps to prevent the government from limiting speech, it appears that the framers were aware of the potential for speech, and press, that challenged the government and pointed out corruption and inequality.

As we know, this is exactly the type of speech that is often limited through social sanctions – such as accusations about the “patriotism” of the speaker. When social sanctions are strong enough to limit speech, those in power get a free pass. They can do whatever they like and don’t have to do anything to stop speech that is defined as “protest.” Informal social controls are so strong that even the terminology used to refer to certain forms of speech can be used to marginalize speech. For example, the word “protest” is used to attach negative connotation to speech that some, including the framers of the Constitution, might refer to as “educational” or “informational” speech.

In effect, free speech is stifled through mechanisms that the government is able to manipulate to assure that the majority will effectively silence minority views. Is the “protest” function of the press similarly silenced?

Amendment I:

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.

My reading of this amendment is that “speech” and “the press” are entitled to the same protections. Can we find hidden meaning here? Is it significant to note that the framers made no distinction between “speech” and “the press?” Although the framers may not have imagined the extend of global media, and they most likely did not imagine the internet, which gives each individual the power to become “the press,” they were aware of the difference between individual speech and speech that reaches a broader audience through the press. It seems logical to assume that the framers were clearly aware of the role of the press and wanted to be sure that the government would not subvert this role. Not only were the framers aware of the role, they saw this role as necessary in an effort to control the government. In effect, the framers wanted the people and press to be free to speak up when things were not going well.

As we know, a key distinction is that “speech” generally refers to communication with small groups – very small relative to the number of people who can be reached through media-based “speech.” This obvious distinction does not appear to limit First Amendment protection of the press. Today, and during the early years of the United States, some want to limit the role of the media. If these people or groups are government actors, they are bound by the Constitution. Different standards apply to the non-governmental actors. However, in this case it might be argued that the needs of the government and corporations have become so intertwined that protections found in the Constitution are not particularly relevant.

Perhaps mainstream media doesn’t endorse the goal of using the press to expose social problems. Some would suggest that the media has become a tool for entertainment. Discussion of equality, corruption, and systemic causes of social problems may not meet the standards of “entertainment.” Others suggest that the media has become a tool of the government and corporate America – each benefiting from a less than free press. Either way, whether entertainment or co-opted by power, mainstream media fails to provide a voice of protest (or education or information) regarding social issues.

I have moved from a broad concept of “the press” to as somewhat more focused term – “mainstream media.” This class is Internet-based and we spend a good deal of our time on the Internet. Alternative media, including voices of protest, can be quickly located on the Internet. However, the Internet voice is already marginalized. Mainstream media is “pushed” on us in ways that make it nearly impossible to ignore. The Internet requires action by those who are interested in hearing alternate voices. Only those who are willing and able to access information over the Internet hear these voices. How many of us are willing to take this additional step? Finally, will the Internet become a voice for the oppressed or will this voice be lost in ways similar to those described above?

As always, I hope my ramblings help you consider other ways of thinking about the issues raised in our readings. I look forward to your comments.