It has been said that “one is an accident, two is a coincidence, and three is a trend. “ If that is correct then there is a trend among right-wing pundits to contemplate the erosion of First Amendment protection of free speech.
Tony Blankley in the Washington Times contemplates that another terrorist attack could lead courts to uphold restrictions on free speech:
Sedition laws almost surely would be found unconstitutional, currently — although things may change after the next terrorist attack in America.">
Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn't exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority -- or even a large and angry minority -- of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic.
BURNS: As what we're saying now indicates, there's a tremendous amount of controversy in this country today about the media's role in covering the war in Iraq. And it's reflected in a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Look at this: where are the problems being created? More people think that the problems related to Iraq are being created in the news media than in Iraq, in Washington D.C., or in any of those combined.
Cal, is this a typical blame the messenger syndrome or is there something more at work here?
THOMAS: I think there's part of that. But I'd like to see a debate on whether we should go back to a form of censorship during the process of war itself. To be able to show all of those pictures while it's going on -- the embedding during the war coverage was fine, I thought. But in the aftermath now, with all of these questions being raised, it's a political and election year, I'm not sure that some form of censorship might not be called for.BURNS: You were -- wait a minute, Cal, you're advocating that?
THOMAS: Yes.
In a September 20, 2001 speech to a Joint Session of Congress, President Bush said:
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? … They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
How can the trend be stopped? That is an easy one. We elect John Kerry as President and elect Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. In that event, how likely is that Cal Thomas would favor censoring news harmful to a Kerry administration?
You said a mouthful. And you said it so well.
Posted by: Chasmyn at May 28, 2004 12:46 AMA recent NYRB article (Anthony Lewis in the May 27th issue 'Bush and the Lesser Evil') makes the point that though restrictions on civil liberties during wars are quite common in US History, the pendulumn swings back when the war is over. This particular episode is quite dangerous due to the undefined nature of this conflict. There will be no clear end to this 'war', so it's even more important to defend against ongoing erosion of our rights.
... and I hope you can continue to say it. :)
I would point out, though, that while the Bush quote you used applies in terms of irony, it's been somewhat discredited -- not to say "it's a crock." Terrorists generally and al-Quaida specifically don't give a flying leap about "our freedoms" per se. They hate our support of Israel and our treatment of the Palestinian question; they hate our political policies that support (for example) the Saudi royal family; many may also simply hate our not being Muslim. Some (many?) don't even have a rational explanation; having been brought up in an atmosphere of hate fed by poverty and religious fervor, schooled in it since a very young age, it's ingrained in them like racism: there *is* no reason; there doesn't need to be.
Of course, *now* they have something immediate and visible to point to... thank you, Mr. President.
--
Tom Barringer
Candidate for NH State Representative: Derry, NH
It is a sad irony that the books used to teach young Muslims boys to hate foreigners were created and printed at the University of Nebraska at Omaha for the US government to foment a rebellion against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
The war on terror must begin with the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is the putrifying wound that must be healed before progress can be made.
To that Bush has added the quicksand of Iraq that is sucking up our military and wealth, and Osama bin Laden is still at large.
Posted by: Bryan at May 29, 2004 01:03 AMThere was a local (NY) news program just yesterday on tattered flags. The reporter was going on and on about the tragedy of people flying flags after they have been worn out. While I myself consider this to be disrespectful, I was slightly surprised when the reporter noted that punishing offenders is largely impossible because of the 1st Amendment and implied that perhaps some modifications might be in order.
I think I would have not have really thought about it had not I already been familiar with Reynolds' and Blankley's comments (I hadn't heard about Thomas' at that point).
Anyway, my response in the face of such rhetoric has always been to quote Ben Franklin: "Those who are willing to sacrifice essential freedom for security deserve neither."
Posted by: space at May 29, 2004 01:37 PMThe version of your opening phrase that I'd heard before ended, "...three times is enemy action."
Which I think we can all agree is probably the case.
Posted by: natasha at May 30, 2004 02:47 AMIf anyone thinks voting against Bush is going to magically wipe away censorship, then they are sorely mistaken.The historical record shows that John Kerry and other Democrats should be expected to practice censorship at multiple levels.Democrats are far more prone to play the censorship card because they like to broaden their “crossover appeal” among voters.They are willing to sell out the First Amendment at the drop of a hat for a few votes. Congressional Democrats probably figure that a substantial amount of people who oppose censorship are not going to vote Republican anyway, so what is there to lose?A prime example is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This bill included the “Communications Decency Act” sponsored by Democrat Jim Exon of Nebraska. Just look at how many Democrat Senators were chomping at the bit to vote for this and get their names on it as sponsors of amendments!The Republican-appointed Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU, that the federal Communications Decency Act, as signed by Bill Clinton, was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, affirming a lower court decision. Yes, these are the same Supreme Court Justices that serve through present day.
Here you can see how the Democrats clamored to pass this bill:
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (S. 652)
S.AMDT.1269Amendment sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of CaliforniaPurpose: To provide for the full scrambling on multichannel video services of sexually explicit adult programming.
Senator John Kerry Voted Yes.
S.AMDT.1275
Amendment sponsored by Kent Conrad, Democrat of North DakotaPurpose: To provide means of limiting the exposure of children to violent programming on television, and for other purposes (V-Chip).
Senator John Kerry voted against a motion to table this amendment.
Conrad Amendment passed as modified by the Lieberman Amendment on a voice vote of the Senate.
S.AMDT.1347
Amendment to Conrad Amendment sponsored by Joe Lieberman, Democrat of ConnecticutPurpose: To revise the provisions relating to the establishment of a system for rating violence and other objectionable content on television.Lieberman Amendment to the Conrad Amendment passed on a voice vote of the Senate.
S.AMDT.1288Amendment sponsored by Patrick Leahy, Democrat of VermontPurpose: To revise title IV of the bill and provide for a study of the legal and technical means of restricting access to obscenity on interactive telecommunications systems.Leahy Amendment passed as modified by the Exon Amendment (Communications Decency Act) on a voice vote of the Senate.S.AMDT.1362Communications Decency ActAmendment to Leahy Amendment sponsored by James Exon, Democrat of Nebraska Purpose: To provide protections against harassment, obscenity and indecency to minors by means of telecommunications devices. Senator John Kerry voted yes. Telecommunications Act of 1996 (S. 652) passed Senate with amendments.Senator John Kerry voted yes. Senate agreed to conference report for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (S. 652)Senator John Kerry voted yes. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (S. 652), which includes the Communications Decency Act was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996.Again, the Republican-appointed Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU, that the federal Communications Decency Act was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Posted by: highway1pch at June 1, 2004 07:33 PM