-------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: Ron Paul oppose an indecent attack on the First Amendment Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:12:29 -0500 From: Singleton, Norman <Norman.Singleton@private> To: 'declan@private' <declan@private> > Congressman Paul was the ONLY republican to oppose this: > > http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr031004.htm > > HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS > BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES > March 10, 2004 > > An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment > > > We will soon debate the "Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004" on the House > Floor. This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated. It cannot > improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it can do irreparable > harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech. > > This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative > language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi > Arabia, who control the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and > Prevention of Vice." Though both may be motivated by the good intentions > of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught > with great danger and has no chance of success. > > Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the > principles of a free society. The Founders recognized this, and thus > explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge > freedom of speech or of the press. > > But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this protection of > free speech. > > This process started years ago when an arbitrary distinction was made by > the political left between commercial and non-commercial speech, thus > permitting government to regulate and censor commercial speech. Since > only a few participated in commercial speech, few cared-- and besides, the > government was there to protect us from unethical advertisements. > Supporters of this policy failed to understand that anti-fraud laws and > state laws could adequately deal with this common problem found in all > societies. > > Disheartening as it may be, the political left, which was supposed to care > more about the 1st Amendment than the right, has ventured in recent years > to curtail so-called "hate speech" by championing political correctness. > In the last few decades we've seen the political-correctness crowd, in the > name of improving personal behavior and language, cause individuals to > lose their jobs, cause careers to be ruined, cause athletes to be trashed, > and cause public speeches on liberal campuses to be disrupted and even > banned. These tragedies have been caused by the so-called champions of > free speech. Over the years, tolerance for the views of those with whom > campus liberals disagree has nearly evaporated. The systematic and steady > erosion of freedom of speech continues. > > Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through > the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the > rights all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the > time of elections. Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by > the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on > political speech during political campaigns. Instead of admitting that > money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much > freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside > the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather > than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process. > > And now comes the right's attack on the 1st Amendment, with its effort to > stamp out "indecent" language on the airways. And it will be assumed that > if one is not with them in this effort, then one must support the trash > seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our televisions and radios. > For social rather than constitutional reasons, some on the left express > opposition to this proposal. > > But this current proposal is dangerous. Since most Americans- I hope- are > still for freedom of expression of political ideas and religious beliefs, > no one claims that anyone who endorses freedom of speech therefore > endorses the nutty philosophy and religious views that are expressed. We > should all know that the 1st Amendment was not written to protect > non-controversial mainstream speech, but rather the ideas and beliefs of > what the majority see as controversial or fringe. > > The temptation has always been great to legislatively restrict rudeness, > prejudice, and minority views, and it's easiest to start by attacking the > clearly obnoxious expressions that most deem offensive. The real harm > comes later. But "later" is now approaching. > > The failure to understand that radio, TV, and movies more often than not > reflect the peoples' attitudes prompts this effort. It was never law that > prohibited moral degradation in earlier times. It was the moral standards > of the people who rejected the smut that we now see as routine > entertainment. Merely writing laws and threatening huge fines will not > improve the moral standards of the people. Laws like the proposed > "Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004" merely address the symptom of a decaying > society, while posing a greater threat to freedom of expression. Laws may > attempt to silence the bigoted and the profane, but the hearts and minds > of those individuals will not be changed. Societal standards will not be > improved. Government has no control over these standards, and can only > undermine liberty in its efforts to make individuals more moral or the > economy fairer. > > Proponents of using government authority to censor certain undesirable > images and comments on the airwaves resort to the claim that the airways > belong to all the people, and therefore it's the government's > responsibility to protect them. The mistake of never having privatized > the radio and TV airwaves does not justify ignoring the 1st Amendment > mandate that "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." > When everyone owns something, in reality nobody owns it. Control then > occurs merely by the whims of the politicians in power. From the very > start, licensing of radio and TV frequencies invited government censorship > that is no less threatening than that found in totalitarian societies. > > We should not ignore the smut and trash that has invaded our society, but > laws like this will not achieve the goals that many seek. If a moral > society could be created by law, we would have had one a long time ago. > The religious fundamentalists in control of other countries would have led > the way. Instead, authoritarian violence reigns in those countries. > > If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve the > quality of the airways, a heavy price will be paid. The solution to > decaying moral standards has to be voluntary, through setting examples in > our families, churches, and communities- never by government coercion. It > just doesn't work. > > But the argument is always that the people are in great danger if > government does not act by: > -Restricting free expression in advertising; > -Claiming insensitive language hurts people, and political correctness > guidelines are needed to protect the weak; > -Arguing that campaign finance reform is needed to hold down government > corruption by the special interests; > -Banning indecency on the airways that some believe encourages immoral > behavior. > > If we accept the principle that these dangers must be prevented through > coercive government restrictions on expression, it must logically follow > that all dangers must be stamped out, especially those that are even more > dangerous than those already dealt with. This principle is adhered to in > all totalitarian societies. That means total control of freedom of > expression of all political and religious views. This certainly was the > case with the Soviets, the Nazis, the Cambodians, and the Chinese > communists. And yet these governments literally caused the deaths of > hundreds of millions of people throughout the 20th Century. This is the > real danger, and if we're in the business of protecting the people from > all danger, this will be the logical next step. > > It could easily be argued that this must be done, since political ideas > and fanatical religious beliefs are by far the most dangerous ideas known > to man. Sadly, we're moving in that direction, and no matter how well > intended the promoters of these limits on the 1st Amendment are, both on > the left and the right, they nevertheless endorse the principle of > suppressing any expressions of dissent if one chooses to criticize the > government. > > When the direct attack on political and religious views comes, initially > it will be on targets that most will ignore, since they will be seen as > outside the mainstream and therefore unworthy of defending- like the > Branch Davidians or Lyndon LaRouche. > > Rush Limbaugh has it right (at least on this one), and correctly fears the > speech police. He states: "I'm in the free speech business," as he > defends Howard Stern and criticizes any government effort to curtail > speech on the airways, while recognizing the media companies' authority > and responsibility to self-regulate. > > Congress has been a poor steward of the 1st Amendment. This newest attack > should alert us all to the dangers of government regulating freedom of > speech-- of any kind. > > Norman Kirk Singleton > Legislative Director > Congressman Ron Paul > 203 Cannon > 202-225-2831 > > "Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over > his fellows." > > C.S. Lewis > _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:22:07 PST