Free Speech


Just who does free speech apply to?
Michael Kinsley has a great column at the Washington Post on some of the selective free speech rights that the New York Times seems to prefer. But buried in the article a little deeper was this choice tidbit.

To give journalists such special privileges you have to define who is and who is not a journalist. That is harder to do in the age of the Internet. One reason for the explosion of hostility toward Miller and the Times is the resentment of the blogosphere. Blogging is, if anything, more like the kind of pamphleteering the Framers had in mind when they guaranteed "freedom of the press" than are the New York Times or The Washington Post. But if everyone with a blog or an e-mail discussion board is a journalist, who isn't?

A little later he wrote this. Emphasis added.

That last point is obviously true. Unfortunately, it should be equally obvious that limits on spending for speech are limits on speech, both in intent and in effect. You can't use money to buy votes directly in this country, for the most part. Having more money is an unfair advantage only to the extent that it is spent on sending a louder or more persuasive message. The government can and should do many things to make the softer voices louder. But when it tries to make the louder voices softer, it is reducing speech, which is unconstitutional.

To me, that is the whole debate. Not over if we are "legitimate journalists" or not, or if bloggers are particularly interesting or indeed even accurate.

The real question is over restricting who is allowed to talk about what whenever there is a political campaign.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Fri - October 21, 2005 at 05:22 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved