Celebrate your freedoms on Constitution Day
Last week, we marked the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This week, we should note an even more significant milestone.
Wednesday marks the 221st anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, the document that is the foundation of America’s bold experiment in self-government.
Ironically, when the Constitution was signed on Sept. 17, 1787, it didn’t include the most important part: The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. That’s because many Founding Fathers didn’t think it was necessary to spell out citizens’ rights and liberties.
James Madison, the future president, was among those who insisted that a Bill of Rights was essential. He waged a tireless four-year political battle that has been chronicled in the book James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights by Richard Labunski, a University of Kentucky professor.
It’s a good thing Madison succeeded.
Over the years, some presidents and other powerful officials have found the Constitution an inconvenient obstacle to achieving their goals. In most cases, the U.S. Supreme Court reeled them in, as it did with some of President Bush’s efforts to subvert the Constitution.
While I worry about rogue leaders who trample on citizens’ rights and freedoms, I worry even more about citizens who don’t seem to care.
The University of Kentucky’s Scripps Howard First Amendment Center will mark the Constitution’s anniversary Tuesday and Wednesday with programs highlighting the First Amendment.
I’ve always considered the First Amendment the most important part of the Constitution. In many ways, its 45 words sum up what makes America great: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I’m shocked by how many people think the First Amendment gives Americans too much freedom. You know who I mean: the people who think religious freedom should apply to one faith but not another, and those who think some speech should be silenced, or that the government should be able to tell journalists what they can or can’t report.
Such attitudes are reflected in an annual poll conducted by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. The 2008 poll will be released Wednesday, but the center’s executive director, Gene Policinski, gave me a preview. The national telephone survey of 1,005 adults was conducted between July 23 and Aug. 3, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Policinski said 21 percent of Americans think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. And about 40 percent think the press has too much freedom.
I find that frightening, not so much because I’m a journalist, but because I’m a citizen.
Still, it’s an improvement over what people told pollsters during those scary post-911, Patriot Act days, when twice as many people thought First Amendment freedoms should be curbed.
Policinski attributes much of the public’s negative attitudes toward press freedom to well-publicized incidents of bad journalism. “But, then, newspapers are one of the few institutions in our society that correct their problems in full view of the public,” he said.
Another factor is perceptions of “bias” in the media, both left and right. Those perceptions have increased in recent years as the role of journalism has been blurred — especially on cable TV and talk radio — by media companies and personalities more interested in advocacy, ideology, entertainment and profit than good journalism.
This is a tough time for the traditional news media — newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Digital technology and a slumping economy have taken away some of the advertising revenue that has always supported good journalism.
Nobody has figured out yet how to make much money with Internet journalism, but the technology itself could prove to be best thing that ever happened to free speech and press. Anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can now have a worldwide voice.
The First Amendment Center’s poll found that the percentage of Americans getting most of their news online has grown from 2 percent in 1997 to 17 percent. And most of those polled said online news can be just as good as news delivered in more traditional forms.
That’s good news for news organizations as they shift more content online. But it also means citizens must become more sophisticated and able to sort credible information from spin and propaganda.
Most of those surveyed thought bloggers deserve the same rights as traditional journalists. In many ways, bloggers are the 21st-century equivalent of the 18th-century pamphleteers the Founding Fathers had in mind when they ensured freedom of the press.
Our nation’s challenge now is to protect Internet free speech from government censorship and business manipulation. But for that to happen, citizens must understand that it matters — and that the future of American democracy may depend on it.
IF YOU GO
The University of Kentucky’s Scripps Howard First Amendment Center has two programs marking the U.S. Constitution’s 221st anniversary. Both programs will be at UK’s W.T. Young Library auditorium.
Tuesday, 6 p.m.
Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota, speaks on The State of the First Amendment.
Before Kirtley’s speech, the center’s 2008 James Madison Award will be presented to Tom Loftus, The Courier-Journal’s Frankfort bureau chief and investigative reporter.
Wednesday, 10 a.m.
Panel discussion on who should be considered a journalist in the new digital media. In addition to Kirtley, panelists will be Kentucky media lawyer Jon Fleischaker, Politico.com managing editor William Nichols and Herald-Leader columnist and former managing editor Tom Eblen.
RSS Feed
September 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Tom,
As a journalist and citizen, what are your thoughts on the arrest of KY Kernel reporters at the recent RNC? Police cracking down with violence against protesters, journalists, and reporters (citizens all) indiscriminately seems, to me, to be a frightening violation of our first amendments rights to freedom of speech, press, and assembly. I am interested in your thoughts, and surprised, frankly, that you haven’t discussed these events in your blog, considering local student reporters were involved. Your insight would be appreciated. Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org) was also arrested, along with her colleagues, and there is audio of that incident available on their website.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Nathan,
The Herald-Leader wrote news stories about the arrests and about the charges against them being dropped. It seemed as if the photojournalists were swept up in a chaotic, potentially violent situation, rather than being targeted by police trying to prevent media coverage. Had the charges not been dropped, I would feel differently. The photographers’ situation was further complicated by the fact that they weren’t credentialed, or working on assignment for a news organization. A photojournalist friend who has covered these sorts of protests at high-profile events told me that groups seeking to spark violence have in the past had some of their members disguise themselves as journalists, with professional cameras, etc. Situations like that can be chaotic, so the police may have just been overly cautious. I know a couple of those arrested. If they have thoughts on the situation, I’d welcome their comments.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
thanks Tom. I did read some of the articles in the HL… I was moreso interested in your personal, “unofficial” take on the seeming assault on our individual freedoms (in light of this post which celebrates our freedoms)… but more to the point, I feel like the behavior of the police at the RNC went far beyond being overly cautious, and ventured into “pre-emptive strike” territory, evidenced by the fact that legitimate journalists were in fact targeted and arrested, rather than a truly “cautious” approach, which would have had the police discern the real journalists from the violent protesters. While the Kernel reporters may not have had proper credentials, there were journalists arrested who DID have proper credentials, which were ignored. It seems to be part of a larger pattern of excessive police force (which is more widely documented today, if perhaps not actually more prevalent, thanks to the widespread use of digital recorders, cell phones with cameras, etc.) And thus, I’m interested in your opinion on this development, as a journalist whose professional livelihood relies rather acutely on the first amendment rights. I really enjoy your blog and respect your opinion, which is why I’m asking you in the first place, figuring you’d likely have something relevant to say on the matter. Maybe you don’t perceive the situation to be as threatening as I do. Fair enough.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Nathan — After doing more research, and talking last night with a First Amendment lawyer in Minneapolis who was very familiar with the situation, I think I underestimated the problem. I agree with you that what happened up there is troubling, as there seems to have been excessive force used not only against journalists but against the protesters. While it is important to prevent violence and property destruction, it also is important to allow peaceful protests and news coverage of them. Journalists have no special rights, and shouldn’t. Their role is to be the citizens’ witnesses and reporters. It will be interesting to see how the investigations of the police actions up there unfold.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Professor Labunski’s book is a great read. I was given the book in 2006 by my friend Burrell Farnsley, who, wisely, read it before making a gift of it. Anyone interested in why we have questions today about how the same wrods are interpreted differently will be pleased and/or discomforted to know the same problems existed during the formative years of the country.