Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Speech Rots from the Inside Out
The American Enterprise Online ^ | January/February 2003 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 12/22/2002 4:21:39 AM PST by billorites

There’s a TV commercial currently running in Washington, D.C. and, for all I know, nationally. It features a bunch of young hipsters using everyday trash as musical instruments. “Never throw away anything you can use to express yourself!” says the voiceover. That pretty well sums up the state of today’s culture.

This fetishization of free expression also shows up in the white-knuckled phobia of censorship that has permeated our media and institutions. From the American Library Association’s insistence that every branch library must allow unfettered access to Internet pornography, to the propagandistic “Read a Banned Book” T-shirts sold by activists, to the ponderous newspaper editorials which butcher Martin Niemoeller’s “first they came for the Jews” warning every time a museum is criticized for another dung-and-urine desecration of the Virgin Mary, America has convinced itself that we are a hair’s breadth away from Fahrenheit 451. Among elites, unfettered self-expression is the highest good, and even the most innocuous forms of censorship are presented as evil by definition.

It’s understandable that people in the First Amendment business would be protective of their franchise. And, yes, free expression is good and nice and important. But, the entire culture, particularly the media, has been brainwashed to believe that censorship is always and everywhere a threat to our very freedom. When I tell college audiences that I favor censorship, the gasps of shock from liberal and conservative students alike nearly suck in the walls and pull the ceiling down.

I ask these kids “Do you think ABC should be allowed to run triple-X porn on Saturday morning?” Well, if you say no, then you believe in censorship.

Similarly if you think strip clubs can be zoned, kiddie-porn banned, and copyright laws enforced, you support censorship. (Copyright laws are one of the oldest forms of censorship: They bar people from disseminating someone else’s work without permission. Try to release a movie starring Mickey Mouse or Snoopy and you’ll see how quickly a court orders you to stop.) And, once we establish that you support some censorship, the question isn’t whether you are for or against it, but how much censorship you want and where you want it.

The fact is that the Founding Fathers were not “against” censorship. The First Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government restricting a free press. Few if any of the Founders would be troubled by obscenity laws. The problem today is that the First Amendment has been thoroughly butchered, with editorialists at the New York Times swinging some of the biggest cleavers.

Consider these editorial positions which reflect the general schizophrenia regarding free expression and censorship. The New York Times is in favor of the federal government forcing tobacco companies to pay for speech that is directly inimical to their interests. But when the Clinton administration wanted to reward TV networks for running anti-drug messages, the Times declared: “In allowing government to shape or even to be consulted on content in return for financial rewards, the networks are crossing a dangerous line they should not cross. On the far side of that line lies the possibility of censorship and state-sponsored propaganda.”

Censorship today is simply defined as censorship we don’t like. Censorship we do like is “responsible policy.” This kind of thinking is a cancer on the very idea of free speech. The Times (and the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, et al.) favors campaign finance laws which sharply regulate the only speech the Founders considered sacrosanct—political speech. Today, anonymous political speech is called “stealth advertising” and the Times wants it banned. The Federalist Papers were anonymous. Tom Paine’s Common Sense would have to be filed with the FEC today. Yet while the big media companies (and the Democrats) claim that such draconian regulations are vital to the existence of the republic, they champion an absolutist right of free expression in matters of culture. Cuts in subsidies for “performance art” or feces smeared on canvas are seen as, gasp, “censorship” by a bunch of fascistic prudes.

Americans generally protect fringe freedoms in order to keep core freedoms safe. But here we treat the fringe as the core and the core as the fringe. Vile obscenity is a testament to the beauty of free expression, but free democratic debate is to be censored. Free speech in America is rotting from the inside out.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 12/22/2002 4:21:39 AM PST by billorites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: billorites
A great post. Thank you.
2 posted on 12/22/2002 5:14:20 AM PST by GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
bump
3 posted on 12/22/2002 5:48:50 AM PST by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
The people who scream the loudest against censorship are many times its most vocal supporter. The people who stand up for porn are also the same ones who decry "hate speech"
4 posted on 12/22/2002 5:51:15 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
As Hillary would say, "I disagree with what you say, so shut up."
5 posted on 12/22/2002 5:58:12 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
That could also be the motto of quite a few posters here on FR too...
6 posted on 12/22/2002 8:17:54 AM PST by Karsus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Karsus
"Shut up", she explained.

-Attributed to James Thurber

7 posted on 12/22/2002 8:39:55 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: billorites
This fetishization of free expression

Jonah thinks the freedom of someone else's
speech is a fetish while his, no doubt, is just what
the Founders want to have around.  Truth to tell, Jonah,
expressions we approve of don't require protection.
That portion of the First Amendment is there for
unpopular expression, probably just the kind you
think should be censored.  That's why the protections
are necessary.
8 posted on 12/22/2002 4:17:28 PM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson