Free communication is essential to preserving democracy. by GT Slade
(libertarian)
Sunday, April 18, 2010
I avoid cliches like the plague. Even one starts you down a slippery slope of hackneyed expression.
During a recent televised news discussion, someone making the "slippery slope" argument was challenged on the phrase, not the facts. Of all the tired expressions to avoid, "slippery slope" is the exception because it is accurate. Horrible injustices spring from tiny annoyances.
Consider free expression. Totalitarian regimes outlaw it completely, case closed. To preserve a pretense of democracy, governments must settle for limits against activities like yelling "Fire!" in a building. Infernos are so noisy, people are unlikely to hear you, anyway.
Censors exploit unpopular phenomena, like pornography or Rap. They claim porn leads to child pornography, so ban it all. Or Rap leads to child violence, ban or censor it. A segment of the population agrees. Censors rejoice, and are encouraged to find other areas for their meddling. Say, internet chat rooms, where perverts can pose as children and try to meet them. Laws criminalize child pornography, violence, child abuse, and statutory rape. Enforce them, don't punish everyone else.
A majority can be revved up to favor limited restrictions on free speech in certain cases, which is why the First Amendment is unambiguous. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The Founders recognized the slippery slope.
Oddly, you have the right to question free speech in a free society, but you do not have the right to question repression in an authoritarian society. Many governments, such as China's, and a couple in the Middle East, consider censorship necessary for the public welfare. I suspect they are more concerned with the government's welfare.
The Constitution protects the unpopular communication necessary for open debate. Limiting free expression never enhances communication. Yet, many believe that it is acceptable to curb speech for the "public good," reverting to the "Fire!" cliche. We get it, no right is 100% unlimited. But why are so-called abuses always from those who disagree with the censor?
In 1969, the US Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting, and likely to incite, immenent lawlessness (Brandenburg v Ohio). It overturned an Ohio law that prohibited the advocacy of violence in general.
Recently, the government tried to prevent an insurance company from opposing their proposals, merely for public convenience, exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.
Another trick capitalizes on new media, for instance saddling broadcast television (and radio) with the Federal Censorship Committee (FCC). Broadcasters must serve a nebulous public interest. For awhile, the FCC tried to control cable and satellite. Now it's the Internet. They could never start by censoring newspapers, even Web editions of newspapers, but blogs are worth a shot. Blogs pose such dangers as purveying lies and distortions, as do newspapers. How are they different? The difference is that the censors think you won't notice that they are restricting rights because it's a new medium so vast you won't know if their criticisms are accurate. In most cases, spreading falsehoods is protected, as any political campaign demonstrates.
Bloggers usually link to source materials you can check, and there's always Google.
Censorship is incremental; there is a slippery slope. So it is with most government oppression. It begins with a tiny income tax, winds up with tax-code provisions to control you, encouraging and discouraging behavior with financial carrots and sticks.
Government is more powerful (one might say more dangerous) than any competing group or individuals. So long as government has free speech, protecting everyone else's right is paramount.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1
thumb so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of GT Slade only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
GT Slade is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
