The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment: Part Two

Now let us take a look at the next part of the First Amendment of the Constitution as it is written:
"Congress shall make no law...., abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..."

What does it mean to abridge the freedom speech? According to the definition of the word abridge to abridge one's freedom of speech means to reduce, diminish, or make less. How can a government abridge someones freedom of speech? One way is to put limitations upon what a person can say with regards to those who govern.

Why did the Founding Father's think it important to guarantee this freedom? Could it be that they knew the manner in which an oppressive government would try and effectuate control over people? During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War the British Crown sent officers of the Court to the New World to monitor those things which were being said against the Crown. Individuals who were found speaking out against the Crown were subsequently jailed and their material possessions taken from them as a consequence of their actions. Merely expressing displeasure in the governance of the Colonies made one fear for their lives and families. After the long fought war for independence the Founding Fathers were insistent that we as a people be permitted to express our displeasure and our views without fear of retaliation (except for cases of treason against the United States). This freedom is essential to a free people. If one is truly free and not the subject of an oppressive regime then they have the right to express their displeasure. On the other hand this freedom doesn't mean that it is without regulation and governance. For example you can't enter an airplane and jestingly declare you are going to hijack the airplane. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded building without consequence. These are common regulations placed upon our freedom of speech. There are social restrictions placed upon our freedom as well. It is not socially acceptable to enter a room full of children and commence spewing forth obscenities, the consequence to this action would be an escorted visit to the local police station for disorderly conduct. The list goes on with regards to the regulation of this essential freedom.

This being said, is this freedom equally extended to all Americans alike? The unfortunate answer to this is no. Today's society has interpreted the meaning of this portion of the First Amendment to imply that only the minority voice is protected from the restriction or oppression of speech. In addition to this inequality in the protection of one's freedom of speech, many have also interpreted this to mean that they have the right to be heard by all. Let's look at the wording once again, "Congress shall make no law......, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..." I see no mention of the fact that only certain groups identified by Congress shall have this protection, nor do I see any mention that when exercising this freedom do you have the right granted to be heard. Furthermore, Congress is currently attempting to move forward with the passing upon of legislation which will make statutory law that which is commonly referred to as the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949 to regulate the presentation over public airwaves of controversial subjects and subjects of importance to the American people to ensure that these subjects were presented in a fair and balanced manner. Essentially it required companies and individuals holding broadcasting licences to give equal time to opposing views of any given subject. This policy was a general practise within the FCC of many years until 1985 when the Director of the FCC decided that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. It was finally abolished as a policy in 1987.

Many within the walls of Congress and the Senate along with special interest groups believe that the Fairness Doctrine was essential to the dissemination of information through public airwaves. Recently Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico told a local conservative talk show host, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." In June of this year Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California told reporters that her fellow democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied "Yes." Others who have voiced their support of the re institution of the Fairness Doctrine are Dick Durban, Democrat from Illinois and John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts. Their desire to establish the Fairness Doctrine through Congressional intervention through legislation has extended beyond the mere application to radio stations and licensed broadcasters. Their current desire is to extend the doctrine to web sites and blogs. Which means blogs like this one would be required to represent both sides of all Constitutional issues or cease all operations and writing. This doctrine would silence talk radio which is dominated by conservative radio hosts, it would cancel Fox News, which has been attacked by the liberal left and Congress as a biased news outlet working for the Republican Party.

Would America be better served with the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? My attitude is of course no. I see no benefit to the American people. I do perceive an encroachment of my freedoms and the freedoms of those who are like minded. Would the Fairness Doctrine be enforced upon MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS? Would those news outlets who have during the last 18 months revealed themselves as no more than political hacks, left leaning liberals, and outright socialists be required to present the news in a fair and balanced manner? As of right now, only talk radio and conservative blogs and websites have been identified as targets deemed dangerous to the American public.

We as Americans owe it to ourselves and our children to ensure that this doctrine is not revived. We have a solemn responsibility passed upon us by our Founding Fathers, one which if we neglect to protect will be taken from us and we will be subjects to an oppressive government, that which our Founding Fathers intended not to happen.

In my next post we will discuss the final portion of this Amendment to the Constitution, which is our freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress.