THE
FIRST AMENDMENT
IS
UNDER
UNPRECEDENTED ASSAULT
Over
the past several months, numerous and unprecedented attacks on the First
Amendment have endangered the most cherished American right, freedom of speech.
From United Nations conferences to the White House, to the floor of the
U.S. Senate, from court rooms to City Halls, and of course the bureaucracies on
the state and local level that (with questionable constitutionality) seek to
regulate political campaigns, the right to open and unfettered expression has
become jeopardized as never before in the American experience.
Internationalization
of control of the internet has brought in the totalitarian policies of
oppressive governments within striking distance of regulating free speech on the
web. The U.N's International Telecommunications Union met in
Turkey in September, and continued to receive unrelenting pressure from
oppressive regimes to enact censorship rules. The organization will meet again
in Brazil in November of 2015. The internal danger to internet free speech
within the United States also arises from President Obama's inexplicable
decision to relinquish U.S. control of the internet.
The
Centre for International Governance
Innovation (CIGI) analyzed aspects of the internet governance debate. Their
report noted that starting in 2003, Russia, China, and the Arab states advanced
"an explicit rule-making agenda" for a more "state-controlled and monetary
version of the internet." According to Freedom House, "Broad surveillance, new
laws controlling web content, and growing arrests of social-media users drove a
worldwide decline in internet freedom in the past year." The study also found
that "While blocking and filtering remain the preferred methods of censorship in
many countries, governments are increasingly looking at who is saying what
online, and finding ways to punish them...In some countries, a user can get
arrested for simply posting on Facebook or for "liking" a friend's comment that
is critical of the authorities..."
Within
the U.S., attempts to bring any comments which could affect political
campaigns (which, on a practical basis, involves almost all discussion of
current issues) under the control of federal, state and local election
commissions has been the Trojan Horse which advocates of limitations on free
speech have used to limit First Amendment rights.
A
Washington Free Beacon article by Ken Vogel
reported that President Obama, in an address to wealthy donors in 2012, asserted that he would be "in
a very strong position" to amend the Constitution regarding campaign laws during
his second term. Tying in free speech laws to campaign regulations has been a
key avenue of attack for anti-First Amendment advocates.
The
comments are particularly ominous in light of the revelations that the Internal
Revenue service targeted groups that opposed President Obama. It is not
coincidental that Lois Lerner, the chief figure in that scandal, previously
worked for the Federal Election Commission and engaged in similar outrages
there.
In
some jurisdictions, such as New York, regulations have been enacted placing
publications of any sort which could affect a campaign under the
jurisdiction by the State Board of Elections. In Wisconsin, the Government
Accountability Board harasses non-leftist groups that seek to disseminate their
views.
Within
the U.S. Senate, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York),
proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain
to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate
supporters-all Democrats. At a Senate
Rules Committee hearing earlier this year, Schumer stated that "The First
Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it
absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans." The Republican minority
was able to block the measure
It's
not just in the sphere of campaign regulations that has seen the First Amendment
jeopardized. Earlier this year, in what may be one of the most controversial
programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications
Commission attempted to implement a so-called "research effort" entitled
"critical information needs" (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of
broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed
government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of
journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.
The
breadth of what would have been covered was a comprehensive list of what the
public sees, hears, reads, or surfs. It includes television and radio broadcast
content, articles printed in daily and weekly newspapers, and even what's placed
on line on the internet. In addition, a so-called "qualitative analysis of media
providers" would have been included. Fortunately, the measure did not go into
effect.
The
FCC is increasingly used as a potential tool by leftist advocacy groups to
silence less radical opponents. Recently, the Wall Street Journal
reported that law professor John Banzhaf III requested the FCC to deny a
broadcast license to a radio station that didn't comply with his attempt to
eliminate the public use of the team name Washington Redskins.
Under
White House direction, federal agencies have engaged in unprecedented actions to
limit free speech. The three Democrat members of The Federal Elections Commission recently sought to
bring many internet posts under the control of that bureaucracy. The move
was blocked by the three Republican members.
Clearly,
President Obama has a particularly disdainful attitude towards the First
Amendment. The Washington Post recently published a "compendium"
of press opinions on President Obama's treatment of the media. Many of the
worries expressed were all the more notable because they came from sources that
were, in the past, generally supportive of the current White House. Among the
more notable comments in the compendium: Former NY Times executive editor Jill
Abramson: "It is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved
in covering." NY Times reporter James Risen: "I think Obama hates the press."
USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page called the Obama Administration
"more secretive and more dangerous to the press than any other in
history."
Beyond
Washington, localities and political pressure groups have grown increasingly
intolerant of dissent. The recent attempt by Houston's openly lesbian mayor
Annise Parker to subpoena the sermons of any clergy preaching against her
controversial measures which would mandate, among other moves, allowing males
who feel they are actually females to use women's bathrooms is a notorious
example, violative of both the free speech and religious mandates of the First
Amendment.
The
National Review describes efforts by environmental extremists to "literally
imprison people for holding unpopular views about global warming."
For
generations, Americans safely assumed that the First Amendment's guarantees of
freedom of speech was sacrosanct.
No comments:
Post a Comment