Freedom of Speech

The principle of freedom of speech promotes dialogues on public issues, but it is most relevant to speech which is unpopular at the time it is made. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees, in theory, that speech and expression will be protected from governmental censorship. In order for the protections of the First Amendment to apply there must be some state action or nexus between the government and the speech sought to be suppressed. Practically speaking this means that speech in the private arena is not subject to the same protections as where the government has an interest.

The problem with this scenario is the pernicious self-censorship practiced by the corporate oligarchs that run the mainstream media. I don’t know how many of you remember Ray Bradbury’s Farenheit 451. From Wikipedia: “Fahrenheit 451 takes place in an unspecified future time, possibly in the 21st or 22nd century, in a hedonistic and rabidly anti-intellectual America that has completely abandoned self-control and bans the possession of books. People are now only entertained by in-ear radio and an interactive form of television. The protagonist, Guy Montag, is a fireman, certain that his job—burning books, and the houses that hold them, and persecuting those who own them, is the right thing to do.” Sound familiar to anyone? Of course in Fahrenheit 451 it was society, not government, that burned books of its own volition, because special-interest groups and other “minorities” objected to books that offended them. Soon, books all began to look the same, as writers tried to avoid offending anybody. Kind of like modern day news broadcasts and television. The result? A self-limited range of acceptable opinion imposed by the very people who would be most upset if that same censorship was imposed from above by the United States government.

The foregoing is a long way of arguing that folks like Imus and Howard Stern are healthy for a society which purports to believe in a free exchange of ideas; I don’t think they should be censored, no matter what they say as long as it isn’t “fire” in a crowded theater. Personally I find the invective and hate speech spewed by O’Reilly and his ilk on a daily basius to be far more damaging to the country’s psyche that anything a senile Imus gould spit out on his worst day. Banning comments because they're offensive, which is the practical effect of running Imus out of town on a rail, is censorship whether coming from a public official or a private cabal. Unfortunately the government has gotten us to do it's dirty work. The following is from a letter posted on Salon in response to an article about Imus, the media, and censorship which says it better than I can:

“We have more important things to worry about than Don Imus doing his old routine. I'm more concerned about the CBC Institute agreeing to moderate debates on the Fox channel, whose commentators chronically belittle and ridicule people of color. I'm more concerned about the paucity of people of color on the airwaves and in the media who write columns and host news shows. I'm more concerned about the availability of opportunity for qualified people of color than I am about the feeble remarks of Don Imus.” –Tanmack. Well said.