|
By Phil Krinkie
Political speech may be at its zenith in the United States and our founding fathers would be thrilled. Websites, blogs, podcasts, information is everywhere. And not only can political information be found everywhere, for the first time dissemination and distribution is relatively inexpensive, requiring a computer or only a library card.
But as you munched on a hot dog or gazed at the fireworks overhead did you pause to reflect on the real events of July 4, 1776? Did you stop to remember the great risk and the human sacrifice that provided us with our liberty and freedom of expression that we enjoy today?
Did you stop and think of those brave men who committed a treasonous act by penning their names to the Declaration of Independence and pause to recall the bitter war that ensued with an outcome that lay in the balance for six long years?
When you read that next editorial or curse the television newscast remember our great history of political debate and take time to reflect on it.
After the war was won, our nation’s first experiment in free speech began in earnest; the question of how our country should operate, what type of government should there be, and the division of power between what we so casually refer to as our three branches of government – the legislative, the executive and the judiciary.
This debate was hot and heavy throughout 1787 and 1788 when a small group of our founding fathers published a series of some 85 papers, known as the Federalist papers, under an assumed name Pubilus, taken from a Roman founder named Pubilus Publicola, meaning “friend of the people.”
The intent of this anonymous publication was to persuade the American public to support the ratification of the constitution, an American public that was leery of a powerful and centralized federal government.
These papers explained the various sections of the Constitution and were written with a political bias – one that supported the creation of a more centralized government verses the status quo, which was a loose knit confederation of states.
There was not equal time or print space given to the opposing side, although there certainly were newspapers as well as politicians who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The intent to persuade is what free speech is all about.
This first experiment in political speech was deemed a success when the Constitution was ratified, but the debate over what constitutes free speech has continued ever since.
A recent Supreme Court decision struck down parts of the McCain-Feingold “Campaign Finance Reform Act” by allowing certain groups to advertise during the “blackout period” just prior to the election, thus achieving a partial victory for free speech.
However, on another front free speech is under attack from a group called “Center For American Progress.” They are objecting to the political content of talk radio and are proposing to limit or curtail this medium because they object to its conservative slant. Yet another report recently divulged the political contributions of people who are employed in the newspaper, television and radio profession which showed a majority of the contributions went to liberal candidates, thus bringing into question their supposed non-bias viewpoint.
Many conservatives today believe that most of the major daily newspapers in our country as well as the big three national broadcast companies have a liberal bias in their reporting. Yet conservatives aren’t proposing to shut them down. Liberals have not been very effective at talk radio. They could work to get better at it or choose another medium for their message, but they should not try to subdue a venue for political expression.
All of these stories and hundreds of others lead to one important point that was best stated by Thomas Jefferson, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” Freedom to express one’s political perspective is just as important today as it was 231 years ago. Recent actions demonstrate how important it is for us to stand up and fight these efforts and any future efforts to limit our freedom of speech.
|
