Sylvia Smith’s First Amendment Fallacy
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 6/23/08 @ 1:52 am - Filed Under Featured, National Politics
The JG’s Washington DC correspondent, Sylvia Smith, penned a column Sunday defending her decision to allow Larry Sinclair speak at the National Press Club. Smith was shocked, shocked I tell you, that people were upset that the NPC would lend Sinclair its credibility. In defending her decision she made a few statements that I think were wildly off the mark and I want to respond.
And therein lies the difference between most journalists and some bloggers: Professional journalists don’t print or air startling allegations without first investigating their credibility.
That’s quite a generalization isn’t it? Judith Miller comes to mind. In fact the entire DC press corps rolled over and played dead for the Bush administration leading up to the Iraq war. I guess Smith conveniently forgot that. And don’t forget her own reporting on NAFTA was extremely suspect as I demonstrated in a previous post.
The underlying message I got from the callers and e-mailers was that the First Amendment and free speech are an impediment to the way they think things ought to be. Or that while some people are free to speak, others should not be.
The first amendment applies to the government - the NPC is not bound by it. I can understand her position - everyone is welcome to speak there - but invoking the first amendment is not a basis for her argument. I think the NPC would be justified to not to allow the KKK, Nazis or other slandering opportunists use of their facility.
Between hosting Rev Wright, renting to Larry Sinclair and allowing fake/disgraced Whitehouse reporter Jeff Gannon to run an NPC blog, I’d say the NPC is rapidly losing credibility…
Comments
10 Responses to “Sylvia Smith’s First Amendment Fallacy”
Leave a Reply
You all do remember the uproar when Turkette was shut down about a year ago. Everyone immediately brought in the First Amendment and free speech, but everyone also forgot that the entity that chose to close his blog was a private company.
The First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment apply against the federal government and the state governments, respectively.
The First Amendment was made applicable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and it (the 14th) wasn’t passed until 1868.
Good point Charlotte. I think I might’ve been guilty of some of that as well. I do think they were threatening to press charges as well which might’ve been where the 1st amendment part came up…
Jeff:
You did notice that Fort Wayne News removed a post about JLT and donating to a convicted crack cocaine whatever? It is still listed in your sidebar, but when I tried to link to it several times, the message just says “error.”
Maybe it’s my computers, but I couldn’t get to it through my laptop or my desktop.
The blogging world may be subject to fewer restrictions than the media, but defamation is one of those areas of speech that is not constitutionally rotected, so while we may say quite a few things freedom of speech is not an absolute.
Jeff,
I seriously disagree with you here. The First amendment legally applies only to the government, but it’s spirit transcends all aspects of our culture. I do not think that NPC should have very many restrictions on who speaks before them. Let the people talk (even if they’re Nazis or KKK) and let the readers and listeners judge the competency of their message.
Just allowing them to speak in itself lends no credibility to their message. As a matter of fact, if the message is as obnoxious as some believe, then allowing them a public forum to speak will probably actually hurt their own credibility.
I can’t disagree with you that the fourth estate does not always hold true to the ideals of the First Amendment, but their previous lapses should not be used to support present or future lapses.
Phil,
I agree with you. Let them talk before educated people and they will prove how stupid and off track their ideas are.
as shakespeare once “ah- and theres the rub”.
America is supposedly an enlightened nation, and just as a broken clock is right twice a day, so too are gadflys, crackpots, perennial candidates, exceedingly dangerous minds, and alleged conspiratorial theorists.
look at how the political mainstream has flowed from far out wacky ideas, to the present day discourse.
In todays climate of political correctness, and thought control by the govt, media, and locals, who all use or misuse their so-called authority to stifle , censor, shun, and blacklist those individuals who’s thoughts disrupt, annoy or bug the status quo, we get what we have here today- a disfunctional government at all levels, and the accompanying economic problems we are facing today.
totalitarian regimes do all they can to silence, or airbrush dissidents from history, or barring that, just make them “go away”.
such as spartacus, Jesus, JFK,RFK, Ghandi, Lincoln, MLK, and so on.
for instance, My blog, x-wire, and my CARLINESQUE (RIP) COMMENTS, OBSERVATIONS, AND SUCH ARE BLOCKED, CENSORED, AND SHUNNED by nearly most local blogs- Is it because i’m a total a-hole, and stupid idiot, and have nothing intelligent nor constructive to say, or contribute? Or is it my ability to use humor, satire, parody, and comedy to cut to the chase, as they say, and point out the absurdity, and idiocy of our parliament of whores, our confederacy of dunces; that we call society? fort Wayne in Particular.
THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES!
We have all heard the stories. Phil Marx and his tirades about the crooked, incompetent cops. Mitch Harpers blather filled self serving blog. John McGauleys, and the others PC “suck up to the rich and powerful blogs”, and all the rest.
Am I the only one brave enough to “call a spade a spade” so to speak”? and if our leaders are “sh-t for brains” and ignorant incompetents, and crooks- tthen I deserve top be told to hush?
You get the point- everybody should be allowed to speak, no matter how stupid, and especially if theyre bright. The truly intelligent, who have something to say, are afraid to speak out, as they may be subjected to repriasl, and retribution. ditto with our local political system of declaring R or d.
I could go on, but I have other blogs to read and comment on.
Beware, Jeff Pruitt- you are being used, and will be ash canned when you nolonger serve the ulterior motives of the local slavemasters, and overlords. BEWARE- the fall.
as forrest gump said “and thats all i have to say about that”.
Phil,
I don’t disagree with your premise. I guess I just don’t see how knowingly allowing a criminal slanderer to benefit from your good name is a first amendment issue. Furthermore, even if you want to make this a first amendment issue, not all speech is protected - slander, for one, is not…
Jeff,
I have to admit that I know very little about this particular person. I agree that the category of outright slander has slightly different rules, but I think a lot of people apply the term slander loosely to fit anything they don’t agree with. (Not saying that’s what you’re doing here) I guess if it truely is slander, then someone would probably take them to court and sue them.
What I don’t like is when some people seem to confuse slander with lie. In many European nations, you can not say that the Holocaust did not occur. This is illegal and will get you thrown in prison. Even though such a statement is an outright lie, I think people should still be able to say it.
If you start deciding whether people can make a particular statement based upon the truthfulness of that statement, then you have seriously hindered the principle of free speech. So I guess if Larry Sinclair is just a liar, he should be allowed to speak so everyone will know he’s a liar. But if his message is outright slander, aimed against a particular individual, then I guess I’d say go ahead and let him speak also, as this will give the slandered party a chance to sue him.
I guess ideally, the only kind of speech that I think should be limited is that which causes irreversible injury to another person. If you call me a child molester on your blog, I can sue you. This will earn me money for my pain and sufferring and the publicity of the trial will also rectify the injury to my reputation. But if you point a crazed mob at me with this same charge, and they stomp me to death, then I can not recover from this.
David C Roach,
I notice that your name here links to your blog. - A victory for free speach!
Phil:
Just a note here, but defamation is not the only form of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Here is a fairly complete list:
1. fighting words
2. obscenity (Miller test using community standards)
3. defamation (libel - written; slander - spoken)
4. hate speech (the speech itself may be protected but enhancement statutes are constitutional because they regulate the conduct not the speech)
5. commercial speech (if untrue or misleading)
6. inciting or producing unlawful actions (overthrowing the government, etc.)
There may be one or two more floating around out there, but these are the primary ones.
While some proponents believe that we should be able to say anything we want, the purpose behind the 1st amendment was to protect political speech in order to encourage a “marketplace of ideas” (and various other reasons for protecting speech).
And just as a reminder again, the 1st amendment applies against the federal government and the 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendment and applied it to the states.
Prior to the 14th amendment, the states were pretty much free to violate any number of their citizens’ rights (which they did on a regular basis). All the Constitution says is that “Congress shall make no law” and, just like other constitutional guarantees, governments then attempt to implement protections and restrictions which may or may not be considered constitutional.
So when we talk about restricting speech, the restrictions exist against government action, not against private action. That doesn’t mean, however, that you can say anything you want.
Another 1st amendment guarantee - freedom of religion - is also not absolute. While your beliefs may inviolate, your actions resulting from your religious choice may be regulated. For example, snake handling, refusing medical treatments, denying medical care to a child because prayer is seen as a form of healing, etc.
Professional journalists don’t print or air startling allegations without first investigating their credibility.
How soon we forget why Dan Rather is no longer doing the nightly news. It was the bloggers who blew aparat the mismatched font within minutes after being broadcast by CBS as fact.