Constitutionally Speaking

I read a lot here on Kos. Sometimes themes come up which cause me to stop and think about what goes on here (in the US), compared with my UK upbringing.

The story about the Press failure to report the Military Experts role in the rush to war was one such.

So I occasionally diary about such er .. musings.

Please bear with me, and correct me where I am wrong. How else am I to learn?

I have this curiosity about the Constitution.

Y’all need to understand that I was not force-fed US Government in school, because I went to school in the UK. Due at least in part to my upbringing, I often compare the attitudes in the UK and Europe, with those here in the US. That is not to suggest that one is better than the other, only to acknowledge the differences, and maybe get hints as to where different societies can learn from each other.

This means that I am only slowly beginning to understand the implications of your Constitution, and am generally playing catch-up with those around me. It also means that I am not simply persuaded that the Constitution is the best thing since before sliced bread just because my parents, teachers, preachers, TV tell me so. I do, however, get that the Constitution simply is, and that there are few around right now who could be trusted with making any significant changes, even should changes prove to be wise and necessary.

I will say, upfront, that one can only admire and respect the United States, for achieving so much in such a short period of time. It would be easy for a Brit to criticize the political process here, safe in the knowledge that our 1000 year Parliament has had time to perfect it’s operations  </snark>. On the other hand, there are indeed checks and balances at work in Europe, that clearly do not work here.

Reading today about how the 4th Estate has been busy swallowing whole the propaganda of the Administration, thereby colluding in the deaths of over 4000 Americans, and many tens of thousands (at least) of others, I am wondering about the 1st Amendment.

It is reasonable to suppose that the Founders considered the Bill of Rights to be the core principles of the Constitution, just as it is sensible that the document be considered as a whole, and not just a sum of individual parts. I know people struggle with that last bit, especially the gun ownership lobbies, who don’t like whole discussions, they even attempt to parse individual words and phrases when discussing the 2nd, but I digress ...

It’s probably not too much of a stretch that they chose carefully the Amendment that would be read first. After all, they were guys who fled religious persecution, and would, no doubt, be very eager that freedom from such, together with freedom to worship should be right up there, numero uno. They quite reasonably, to my mind, attached a similar degree of importance to the Right of man to speak his mind, although I do wonder sometimes why they chose to vest that Right in the Press. Nonetheless, the principle is established.

So ..... does it work?

Well apparently not. I can see that the Founders were a body of men who believed that a free and unfettered press was as significant a check on the three branches of government, as they were upon each other. I sit back and admire the vision and the concept both. The problem seems to be that free speech appears to carry very little with it, in the way of responsibility. Sure there are some laws restricting what can be said under certain circumstances, but that hasn’t stopped the Pharmaceutical industry using advertising to pressurize doctors into prescribing. In the UK the advertising of Ethical Pharamaceuticals on radio and TV is banned. The public, it is suggested, is not the customer. The public cannot prescribe the products, so the marketing is restricted to those who can. This is not a perfect system, it relies on doctors keeping up to date, and not succumbing to industry incentives, but neither does it lead to a society where masses of people are conned into believing that they do not need to change lifestyles, because WE have the PILL that will cure it.

The Founders, however, charged the Press with the role of Guardian Angel. There are notable examples  of them fulfilling this role admirably. Watergate would, I guess be the obvious one. In the current climate, however, the need has never been greater for the Press to defend the Constitution, defend the people and preserve the principles on which the nation was founded.

Yet never has there been a time when they apparently do less of any of this. Fox News, for example, is one of the worst mainstream offenders. Faux News is a good moniker. But need Fox be like this? Fox is owned by News International, a Rupert Murdoch entity. Rupert Murdoch is Australian and, forgive me Rupert if I read you wrong, cares little for the USA, either for or against, and cares principally about simply making money. He does this any way he is permitted, and he is very good at it. RM will, and does allow Fox News to operate any way it chooses, as long as it makes as much money as possible, or paves the ground for his other activities to make, or continue to make money.

Let us hop over the Pond for a moment. News International also owns The Times (London), The Sun (Lon. Daily tabloid) and Sky TV, including Sky News. While Sky News was always considered a little tabloid in it’s presentation, it regularly won awards for good, investigative journalism, and was seen as reasonably a well-balanced an outfit as most of the others. It was (dunno about is) regarded as a genuine news organization in a way that Fox simply is not.

So what gives? The UK has no free speech Amendment. Speech in the UK is actually able to be very tightly controlled, in a manner that would have Americans howling in anguish, yet the UK isn’t disintegrating, society there is peaceful and well ordered as most. Companies have their ads banned, yet we still produced both Glaxo-Smithkline and British Petroleum.

I am beginning to wonder the issue of the 1st Amendment. While fully supporting the ideas contained therein, I do wonder why the US has allowed it’s provisions to be perverted the way they appear to have been. Almost to the point of allowing ANYTHING, because the 1st Amendment is the Holy Grail, even when the facts in front of your face every day suggest that this is far from the case.

I might return to this ..... I am constantly reminded of the Rights Americans believe they have .... Rights and Freedoms. From where I stand, the reality appears to be that Americans have, actually fewer rights and freedoms than they think they have. Indeed in my 45 years in the UK I rarely had to listen to my countrymen discussing their rights and freedoms. Sure it happened, but not often, yet I actually believe that the absence of a written Constitution enshrines rights rather more effectively that the reverse. A curious irony.

It’s almost as if the Government got rid of the difficult bit (the granting of rights to citizens) in the title, then went about implementing the small print in such a way that means that citizens have very few meaningful rights, even though we sure can point to all the ones they have. Does free speech mean much when you are subject to at will firing? Being the quickest example I can think just now.

I suspect that the Founders were decent and idealistic. They were also smart, and quite deliberately charged the Press with a solemn duty towards the American people. Oh how they have been let down.

•  tip jar?

  If I am wrong, entirely wrong or even devastatingly wrong :) Please let me know.

  I am not easily offended, just curious

  by twigg on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:55 AM PDT

  •  As an American

    I inherently value the 1st ammendment.  However, you bring up a good point.  As the gap between rich and poor widens, so does equality of free speech.  Corporations control press to a degree, and the television and radio airwaves.  However, the internet has become the great equalizer in a sense - hence we are at the daily kos talking about our ideas.  And beautifully, the first ammendment protects us here (and anywhere else) in our exchange of ideas.

    by canag on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:44 AM PDT

  •  minor point regarding drug advertising:

    that used to essentially be prohibited by the FDA, but that prohibition was modified under Reagan, and all but removed under Clinton.  Prior to 1981 there were no ads for prescription drugs.

    To your larger point, a lot of our current problems can be traced to violations of the Constitution by an Executive branch which has become too powerful since WWII.  Add a spineless Congress which is unwilling or unable to stem such a power grab - even with clearly impeachable offenses exposed - and you're asking for trouble.

    by skrekk on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:48:11 AM PDT

    •  I suspect it was because Congress

      might be effectively emasculated by a rogue Executive that the Founders devised a last line of defence. That is that We The People could be informed via the good offices of a protected Press.

      Well they were right, in theory.

      by twigg on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:54:55 AM PDT

•  The press qua institution has no special right.

  It's interesting that one's constitutional rights aren't enlarged by one's role or standing as journalist.  There are certain statutes that are impacted by the question of whether one is a journalist, but whether one is a journalist is irrelevant to the scope of first amendment protection afforded.

  yet the UK isn’t disintegrating, society there is peaceful and well ordered as most.

  We don't have rights so that society will be well-ordered; to the contrary, I see rights as a guarantor of a certain amount of productive disorder.  Regardless, I find the notion that someone can be jailed or fined for political speech to be creepy, no matter how noxious the speech.

  by burrow owl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:35:29 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    I probably worded it badly. I wasn't meaning to imply that peace and order were the necessary results of rights ..... more that the people in the UK generally don't feel that their rights are somehow lessened by not having them spelled out.

    There is a suggestion that if Rights are spelled out, then they are the only rights you will ever have, and they are subject to interpretation.

    Over the last several years, the effect of recent legislation has all but destroyed much of that which Americans hold so dear, and most haven't actually realised it yet.

    The Government has rolled back vast areas of several Amendments, as yet unchallenged in the Supreme Court (don't let's hold our breath), and the Press has largely ignored it.

    So much for oversight :(

    by twigg on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:51:51 AM PDT

•  Interestingly enough

  I was reading about the Bill of Rights this morning on the train to work. According to Constitutional Scholar Pauline Maier, the Bill of Rights was not actually included in the original Constitution. 12 amendments were submit for approval by the states after the fact, but the first two (one concerning representation, the other with controlling the number house reps per state based on specific population #s) were rejected. Leaving the "First" amendment to be first. These 12 amendments were submit and approved at future President James Madison's insistence. He believed the provisions of the Bill of Rights should be included in the articles of the Constitution proper. The Bill served several purposes, but in the end the founders were divided over the need for such a list. History has also shown that the Bill of rights can be manipulated to suit just about any need.

  That being said, I'm an am firm believer in Freedom of Speech, Religion and Press, but the founders were split over the need to even include these provisions. In the opinion of some scholars, the Bill of Rights appears to be an afterthought to the main Constitution, and they doubted (as you do) the necessity to spell out such freedoms at all.

  Good Post.    

  by LeftBob1326 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM PDT

•  First Amendment

  It seems to me that you are grouping freedom of speech and freedom of the press together as one issue, which it is not.  

  Freedom of speech applies to all, not just journalists.

  Historical note:  The constitution was 'drafted' and presented to the states without the 'Bill of Rights'.  It was made clear (by Madison, et all) that the core constitution could not be accepted by the states without the Bill of rights. You have to remember the concerns at the time regarding the rights of the 'states' and the powers of the federal government.  This was one of the core conflicts post-revolution.

  It is truly fascinating to study the change in attitudes by some of the 'founding fathers' regarding federalism, individual rights, and state rights over the course of time.

  by Kiki LaRue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:48:11 AM PDT

  •  Well the 1st Amendment

    which grants freedom of speech chooses to specifically order freedom of the press.

    There are no accidental inclusions in the Constitution, therefore the specifying of the freedom of the press so clearly must have been done for a reason.

    I may not have been very clear .... sorry. I agree that the Amendment gives free speech to all, it then specifically orders a free press .... it is ordering the additional freedom to organise mass communication to the People.

    by twigg on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM PDT