Free speech, I believe, was guaranteed to prevent those in power from silencing political opposition. Some interpret the free speech guarantee to include any vulgarity, more license than just free. Some even believe political lies and deceit are acceptable. They display this belief with their "wink and a nod" behavior.
I know for sure that free political speech is guaranteed and that much thought and effort goes into protecting it, but there are those who have invented "politically correct free speech" which is a modification of the intent of the guarantee without formal approval. This is a direct "in your face" violation of the first amendment. If I were rich, I would shout every politically incorrect word, phrase and idea and dare anyone to attack me in violation of my right to do it. We would be engaged in a life-long court battle for the violation of my civil rights. People who lose their jobs over such utterances should, if possible, follow that path.
But, I digress. If, as I believe, it is political speech which is protected, that right means little if some can "afford" more free speech than others. The voices have more or less influence depending upon the amount of money they can spend on "speech" in all its forms.
It isn't hard to imagine unscrupulous, even criminal or foreign interests, with more money than most, drug cartels and organized crime as examples, to buy almost any election. The electorate are bombarded with half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies while often the targets do not have the money to counter the charges to defend themselves. This unequal ability to "speak" presents a serious problem which is nearly impossible to solve without modifying or reinterpreting the intent of the amendment.
In recent years, some have tried to introduce the so-called fairness doctrine which would require media of all kinds to give equal coverage to all sides. Interpreted strictly, it would almost require candidates to spend as much money on behalf of his opponent as he does on his own campaign. While there is no practical, constitutional way to "equalize" political speech, it's obvious it is desirable. The only way this could happen would be if it were a voluntary acceptance by all parties, in a contract signed by all parties, which would agree upon a maximum expenditure for a particular race. Those who sign and fail to comply could be punished in some effective way for breach of contract and might be required to pay for a front page add stating, "I am a liar!" Those who refuse to sign will suffer the same suspicion accorded those who "take the fifth" while under oath.
The Super-PACS (Political Action Committees) is where a lot of bad things can happen. The potential exists for "very bad man" things since the contributors are "anonymous". There is no way to control or audit these funds or what is done with them. Not good.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I know for sure that free political speech is guaranteed and that much thought and effort goes into protecting it, but there are those who have invented "politically correct free speech" which is a modification of the intent of the guarantee without formal approval. This is a direct "in your face" violation of the first amendment. If I were rich, I would shout every politically incorrect word, phrase and idea and dare anyone to attack me in violation of my right to do it. We would be engaged in a life-long court battle for the violation of my civil rights. People who lose their jobs over such utterances should, if possible, follow that path.
But, I digress. If, as I believe, it is political speech which is protected, that right means little if some can "afford" more free speech than others. The voices have more or less influence depending upon the amount of money they can spend on "speech" in all its forms.
It isn't hard to imagine unscrupulous, even criminal or foreign interests, with more money than most, drug cartels and organized crime as examples, to buy almost any election. The electorate are bombarded with half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies while often the targets do not have the money to counter the charges to defend themselves. This unequal ability to "speak" presents a serious problem which is nearly impossible to solve without modifying or reinterpreting the intent of the amendment.
In recent years, some have tried to introduce the so-called fairness doctrine which would require media of all kinds to give equal coverage to all sides. Interpreted strictly, it would almost require candidates to spend as much money on behalf of his opponent as he does on his own campaign. While there is no practical, constitutional way to "equalize" political speech, it's obvious it is desirable. The only way this could happen would be if it were a voluntary acceptance by all parties, in a contract signed by all parties, which would agree upon a maximum expenditure for a particular race. Those who sign and fail to comply could be punished in some effective way for breach of contract and might be required to pay for a front page add stating, "I am a liar!" Those who refuse to sign will suffer the same suspicion accorded those who "take the fifth" while under oath.
The Super-PACS (Political Action Committees) is where a lot of bad things can happen. The potential exists for "very bad man" things since the contributors are "anonymous". There is no way to control or audit these funds or what is done with them. Not good.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
No comments:
Post a Comment