First, let me point out that I don't watch Fox news… or headline news… or CNN… or MSNBC… or my local affiliates. In fact, I abhor Fox News' worship of the state just as much as I detest CNN's worship of the state. The only difference between the two networks is each supports a different prince and each advocates their man's assumption to the throne.
Many people hate Fox News. That's fine with me. As an economist, I understand the concept of voting with your dollars. If you like a TV show, watch it. If you don't like the show, then don't watch. It's that simple. Furthermore, by that logic it is obvious that many people enjoy Fox News; Fox continues to sell advertising. However, many people in this country have decided that the "live-and-let-live" approach is no longer acceptable.
The folks over at Moveon.org have a petition which asks the FTC to shut down Fox News because of misleading advertising (fair and balanced). That is, they don't like the Fox message and are attempting to use the coercive power of the state to silence that message. Many of you reading this article today may be echoing that same sentiment. You may believe that the Fox message is so destructive that it would be best if the government were to shut down the network. I disagree. Once you allow the government to decide whose voice may be heard, liberty becomes nothing more than a charade.
A Little History
Attacks on speech by government are nothing new. Most of us are familiar with Britain's Stamp Tax. Begun in 1699 as a temporary measure, it was increased in 1712 in response to the popularity of political pamphlets. After all, the British government couldn't have rabble-rousers pointing out the shortcomings of the politicians and their policies. It was that same Stamp Tax which helped push American colonists towards revolution.
The founders of the United States were well aware of how government could stifle political speech. Therefore, those founders added to our Constitution the First Amendment stating that, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." How quickly did American political hacks forget the reasons behind those words.
- In 1798, a mere nine years after the United States elected George Washington as President, Congress passed The Seditions Act of July 14, which stated that, "if any person shall write, print, utter or publish… any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States… [that person] shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years."
Anyone familiar with the Seditions Act immediately points out the fact that the office of Vice President is missing from the list of those who may not be questioned. This is due to the fact that Jefferson was the VP and was a staunch anti-federalist, all of whom opposed such tyranny.
The Federalists quickly submitted their lists of "political enemies" and caused to be arrested twenty five people, most of whom were prominent newspaper editors. However, one of the arrestees was Matthew Lyon, a sitting Congressman who publicly spoke against Adams' push for war.
- Lincoln, in a May 18th, 1864 order to General John Dix, wrote, "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce… and prohibit any further publication thereof…. You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison… the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers (DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2002. The Real Lincoln).
- The Seditions Act of 1918 states that, "whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States… shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both."
Hundreds of people were arrested for speaking out against the war. Notably, many were arrested due to the fact that this act made illegal speaking out against the draft.
- Until 1987 we lived under the Fairness Doctrine. Broadcasters operate at the pleasure of the FCC which has dictated that, as broadcast waves are a scarce good, broadcasters must give equal time to both sides of controversial arguments (read: political speech) or relinquish their license (the idea that broadcast waves are more scarce than paper and ink was thoroughly trounced by Coase). Even though this law was abolished by the FCC in 1987, it continues to be cited today. During the last presidential election, an owner of a broadcast company decided to show an unflattering John Kerry documentary. Kerry responded by stating the broadcaster must give him equal time to respond (the legal question, to my knowledge, remains unanswered as the broadcaster succumbed to pressure from advertisers).
- Similar attacks often rise in congress against "conservative radio" stating that laws must be passed to give the left equal time in America's heartland.
Today
The single most egregious law meant to stifle free speech which has been passed in my lifetime is, of course, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which limited how much money may be contributed to a political candidate. The Supreme Court upheld the law; however in his dissent (which is well worth reading in its entirety), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography…, tobacco advertising…, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications…, and sexually explicit cable programming…, would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national-party use of “soft” money to fund “issue ads” that incumbents find so offensive.
Originally, the McCain-Feingold-Anti-Free-Speech-Act exempted political communication on the internet. However, in the fall of 2004, that exemption was overturned by District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who wrote, that the “commission’s exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines” the law’s purpose. Therefore, according to the Federal Elections Commission, coordination on the internet must be regulated.
Here's the fun part… an interview with the FEC's Bradley Smith, neatly summarized in the following statement from Wikipedia, notes that the Act may "consider political statements as being the equivalent of campaign donations. Because access to internet statements are weakly controlled, the campaign value of statements is not known in advance and a high ultimate value may trigger large fines for violations."
Let's follow the logic… in order to present a level playing field (sic) in political campaigns, the Act limits the amount of money which any one person may donate to a candidate. However, the Act considers political statements to be the equivalent of campaign donations and must be controlled.
Allow me to present some math which even I can understand:
If political statement = campaign contribution
Then, campaign contribution must equal political statement
Ta-dahhh!
Campaign contributions are, in fact, political speech, are explicitly protected by the United States Constitution and may not be abridged by law (notwithstanding the opinions of messieurs McCain and Feingold).
A Short Conclusion
We must never allow the government to dictate to us what we can say and to whom we can speak. Free Speech is that barrier which helps to keep tyranny at bay. If we stand silent as the government shuts down Fox News, or CNN or Rush Limbaugh, or the Weekly World Workers News, what will we say when they come for LewRockwell.com?
March 28, 2007
