Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Failure of the First Amendment

By Robert Jensen, AlterNet. Posted March 1, 2006.


A new book explains why the traditional idea of "free speech" is ill-equipped to deal with the latest threats to personal liberty.
Advertisement

There is no shortage of books these days analyzing what contemporary U.S. society gets wrong, but one of the criteria on which the United States ranks high in the world is legal protection for freedom of expression. Our legal regime built on the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech and press is not perfect, but over time the scope of real expressive liberty has expanded, as popular movements and progressive legal thinkers have demanded that liberty and crafted the rules for making it real in day-to-day life.

That's why Ronald K.L. Collins' and David M. Skover's The Death of Discourse is so chilling: The book details why our traditional approach to freedom of expression -- the ideas that led to this expansion of liberty, ideas that are admirable in so many ways -- is ill-equipped to cope with either the contemporary challenges we face or the future. In fact, this traditional approach to freedom of expression may well be hastening the collapse of the culture.

Could it really be that grim? Is this the nature of the modern crisis: Even what we have learned do well is going to contribute to our demise? When the first edition of the book was published in 1996, my answer was a painful, but tentative, yes. As the updated edition is published, I am ready to drop the tentativeness. Collins and Skover identify a few key questions that we can not ignore: "If today's First Amendment represents a way of life, what kind of life? If it represents freedom, what kind of freedom? And if it represents the triumph of democracy, what kind of democracy?"

Collins and Skover explain that we face both Orwellian and the Huxleyan threats in the First Amendment arena. The former are rooted in the nightmare vision of the novel 1984, in which thought and expression are constrained by the direct repression of the state and no meaningful freedom is permitted. The latter describe the equally nightmarish vision of Brave New World, in which people are flooded with a pacifying array of amusements so that freedom becomes irrelevant.

Our First Amendment jurisprudence is rooted in the fear of that direct state repression, and for good reason; human history is replete with examples of that repression, including dramatic and recurring examples from U.S. history. Collins and Skover point out repeatedly that concerns about the use of state power against individuals and groups who dissent can never be ignored, and they re-emphasize the importance of that in the second edition, keeping in mind the post-9/11 experience of the Patriot Act and the Bush administration's rejection of due process for thousands of prisoners in the United States and abroad.

So, without dismissing the threat of government suppression, they highlight the perhaps greater danger of a passive and placated public. While we have secured expansive rights against government repression: "Now our free speech system equates electronic self-amusement with enlightened civic education, the marketplace of items with the marketplace of ideas, and passionate self-gratification with political self-realization."

Collins and Skover identify these primary threats:

1. "the difference between the old principles of political speech (rational decisionmaking, civic participation, meaningful dissent) and the new practices of an electronic entertainment culture (trivialization, passivity, pleasure)."

Freedom of expression is crucial to self-government, but mass media have developed in ways that undermine people's capacity to participate meaningfully in the formation public policy. That comes both from the flood of entertainment -- the modern equivalent of the circus in "bread and circuses" -- that so easily diverts people from the public arena, and the steady degradation of the intellectual level of so-called television journalism, especially on the cable talk shows.

2. "the difference between the informational principles of commercial speech (marketplace of economic ideas) and the imagistic practices of a mass commercial advertising culture (marketing of items)."

Whatever one's evaluation of the morality or sustainability of capitalism, freedom of expression is crucial to a functioning market economy, but the manipulation industries (marketing, advertising, and public relations) undermine a real market system. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on commercial propaganda make a mockery of any notion of markets based on information and rational actors; the whole system is designed to suppress honest information and promote irrational behavior.


Digg!

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and the author of, most recently, The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights Books).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thank you for the outstanding review.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 1, 2006 2:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, about the book reviewed: No law is immune to exploitation and corruption. The First Amendment has addressed each of the authors' concerns and, in good times, advanced the democratic process. It's not the First Amendment at fault. It's the interpretations given to it. (In philosophy, it's called hermeneutics, and it's there from beginning to end, whether we like it or not.)

So, yeah, with the new members of the SCOA, we're in deep do-do.

I admit to the possible appeal of the authors' neo-puritanism for religio-cultural conservatives. It sounds like a great book to recommend to the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Any missionary work in that direction is greatly to be appreciated.

Next about the reviewer's analysis of capitalism. Yes, yes, yes. And I've also come to believe that one of our problems is that with "Manifest Destiny" as the rallying cry, "Go West, Young Man" has come to mean: whatever you can steal is yours by rights of possession! That seemed to work. So we've continued to spread it far beyond our shores.

But today the globe is possessed by 6.5 billion people who ain't gonna give up without a fight. Remember Willy Lohman's uncle, in "Death of a Salesman," who went off into the depths of the jungle and returned fabulously wealthy? That's capitalism's version of the American Dream. It's not our founder's dream, which was social progress without violence.

We opted for violence that day in 1630 my Puritan ancestors landed in Massachusetts Bay, and we've practiced it ever since. Can the First Amendment serve violence? Of course, nothing is immune from serving violence. We even kill people in the name of love, and religion, and God. A violent people will find a way and an excuse. And that despite the assurance that the children of God are the peacemakers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fatal Flaws
Posted by: ConnecttheDots on Mar 1, 2006 4:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bravo, Mr. Jensen, for revealing, and expressing so eloquently, the fatal flaws of capitalism.

As for democracy, it can only be preserved by denying corporations the rights commonly reserved for individuals. Not a panacea, but a healthy start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A weighty problem
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 2, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors pose a weighty problem. They recognize that unbridled capitalism is fatal to Democracy. It must be controlled. But even though flawed, so far capitalism is the best economic system in a Democracy.

Democratic government recognizes that freedoms aren't absolute. There is always a moving balance between personal freedom and government oppression. The fight is between the people and the government.

Capitalism on the other hand pits the corporations against the people. The government is a third party, a referee.

At this time it seems that the government is not impartial, it is on the side of the corporations against the people. The corporatocracy has bribed the referee. The people must fight both. We must get the referee to be fair. We can only lose in a game with the cards stacked against us.

The only weapon that the people can use peacefully against the government is our votes. We must now challenge the government, through both parties, to choose between our votes and the establishments money. They must declare which side they're on.

Join The Lincoln Initiative, a grassroots movement, not an organization. Help make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality. Click on join up

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article
Posted by: AlphaHusky on Mar 2, 2006 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Professor Jensen has been ahead of the curve on freedom of speech and the intertwining of the pornography "issue" for many years. Of course, porn does not cause rape. But what does it contribute to our society? It seems that many of us debated the good and bad of porn for a long time, while the government was slowly encroaching on our free speech rights. The debate about porn is valid and necessary, because our freedom to exploit others as freedom of speech has now replaced our freedom to speak out against our government- the true meaning of the First Amendment. Today, we have a president and congress with virtually unlimited power, and while we who oppose them point this out, it seems no action will be taken. Instead, we have a porn saturated society, a distraction to keep us from really taking any action against this illegitimate president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

courage
Posted by: eileenflmng on Mar 2, 2006 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Our first act of courage is to face honestly the state of the society."


We the people provide 3 billion dollars a year to Israel, a Mid East democracy that has NEVER allowed International Inspectors into their WMD Program in the Negev.

We the people need to WAKE UP and learn about the FREEDOM OF SPEECH trial of a truth teller going on now in Jerusalem

WAWA Feb 18 BLOG:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Albert Krauss
Posted by: alkrauss on Mar 2, 2006 4:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The review, the thesis, and most comments, affirm the basic analysis of the corrupting and destructive power of the system labelled "capitalism". One must remember, as well, that capitalism funded European fascism and Soviet so-called communism. The Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan, as well as the Soviet system, were forms of state "capitalism", in which power, and industrial efficiency at the service of national geo-political goals, along with the infinite enrichment of the elite, were (and still are, for so-called Free Market participants) the functional processes of preference.

Sorry if that seems an overlong sentence, it is syntactically correct :)

So, bottom line, the great danger is that the prevailing dominance of investment uber alles now is engulfing India and China. Sorely missing, and possibly unattainable, is the kind of ethical political revolution which can up-end (as in overthrow) the dominance of capitalist modalities of investment. Beyond merely opposing the straw demons of individual corporations, we must support revolutionary regimes like those coming into their own, in South America i.e. the Bolivarian movements in Bolivia and Venezuela and elsewhere. We must seek to import the Bolivarian ideal and adapt it to the self sustaining localiziation movement in the U.S.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just a thought
Posted by: sterlingwisdom on Mar 6, 2006 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will admit that I am totally ignorant of the book reviewed but the tone of this article is a familiar one I have noted for years. Capitalism bad. Well, it sure has its down side. But everything (as the author acknowledges) is a two-edged sword.
As a young idealist I volunteered in a food coop. Seemed perfect - low cost high quality food freed from capitalist greed. I worked hard and got to watch that coop fail right before my eyes and despite my best efforts. Why? Because in the real world the old slogan, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," becomes, "From each as little as he can get away with, to each as much as he can take." Individuals (with rare exception) will not work for the common good no matter what they say. They will, however, work for personal gain. That's why capitalism is kicking butt. If you doubt me try and find a food coop in your neighborhood.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]