Congress and the "Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004" [fs]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

-------- 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 () mail house gov>
To: 'declan () well com' <declan () well com>

> 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/)