US Politics: Leaf-Peeping and Re-thinking the Freedom of Speech (Matlin)

EA's US Affairs correspondent John Matlin checks in from the US Northeast:

For the past few days, I have enjoyed the privilege of “leaf peeping,” the annual ritual of looking at the fall colours in New England.The trees provide a cornucopia, shades of green, some verging on blue, as well as oranges, yellows, bronzes, golds, silvers and reds of every hue.

The season is almost over, so the hordes of motorists are gone. Those who remain have been courteous and polite. The whole experience has been rewarding, to put it mildly. 

However, all is not right here. Trying to match the beauty of this fall in New England and the US political scenie is an impossible task.

Let’s take the example of Governor Lynch of New Hampshire, a Democrat. By all accounts he has done a pretty good job over the past four years.

But he carries the burden, as a progressive, of his stance on felony prisoners. If they have served their time and were not convicted of a violent crime, Lynch suggests, maybe their right to vote should be restored. So the Republicans, using "political action committee" money, vilify him as a supporter of criminals and tell outright lies.

In the Governor’s race in Vermont, the Republicans appear to be out-spending the Democrats by five to one and their candidate is well ahead in the polls. Maybe he is a really good candidate, but his record is secondary to the power of the dollar. I do not know if the money that backs him and gives him his lead arises from poor fund-raising by the Democrats, exceptionally good fund-raising by the Republicans, or a candidate funding himself. But when billionaires like Mayor Bloomberg of New York can lawfully spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their own political campaigns, where is the fairness and balance?

The complexities of freedom of speech here extend far beyond political campaigning. Let’s take one Glenn Beck, a television and radio host and self-styled historian. On that oxymoron of a television channel, Fox News, he asked, “Why did we buy Alaska in the 1950s?” [Editor's Note: One of the cornerstones of schoolboy/schoolgirl history in the US is that the purchase of Alaska was part of "Seward's Folly" in 1867.]

Presumably, having attended the University of Sarah Palin, Beck has created his own online university, re-writing the nation’s history as if it were a fundamentalist state. He suggests that President Woodrow Wilson, a Progressive, was actually inspired by the Nazi eugenic idea, leading to the Holocaust. Beck then asserts that Obama continues this Nazi ideal by favouring health care rationing and supporting federal government "death panels"

You can dismiss Beck as an aberration, a non-entity if you wish, but his audiences total more than two million. No doubt some of them are taken in by this idiocy.

Why does America allow these people oxygen on the airways? The answer is that "It’s the First Amendment, stupid!"

I am keenly aware of the principle articulated by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that “we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.” However, what is being expressed by shock jocks and their ilk is not opinion but loathsome lies. Almost a decade ago, television evangelists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson suggested the 9/11 attacks were God’s punishment for abortion and homosexuality. Is this the kind of opinion that should be allowed to be aired, with the hurt it caused to the families of those who died in the attacks? If the answer is yes, those who offer such support should shut up when an American flag is burned.

My point is this. If a citizen has a right, he should have an equal obligation to use that right fairly. Thus, freedom to speak does not mean freedom to lie. I accept the ground is less than entirely firm for this argument, especially in a country where the politician’s prayer is, “God, give me health and strength and I’ll steal the rest.” But couldn’t we at least have the debate?

Last month, a Florida preacher whose congregation was no more than thirty received an unwarranted amount of publicity because he was going to burn a copy of the Koran. I can accept that freedom of speech permits such an action but why give this man any oxygen at all? Ignoring him would hurt him far more.

This week, the Supreme Court hears argument on a case seeking to prevent demonstrators against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan protesting at serving soldiers’ funerals. Whilst I find the demonstrators’ actions repugnant, the demonstrations have been peaceful and at a respectful distance. Nevertheless, do not the mourners have a right of privacy greater than that of the right of protest?

I’d like to think the Court might use this case to make a start to limit the extent of “rights”. I suspect, however, my time will be better spent and rewarded by giving up my concerns on rights and obligations and concentrating on more leaf-peeping.