The First Amendment established Freedom of Religion, Speech, the Press, to Assemble and Petition the government. The Bill of Rights limits Congress from making laws restricting what government can do, not individuals or entities. Therefore, Facebook, Twitter, etc. can limit speech on their platforms since one must agree to their rules in order to join. However, when they limit speech it must be realized that they are limiting the “free exchange of ideas.” This phrase should be the focus as it represents the greatest threat to an open discussion of issues.
The Declaration of Independence is more philosophical than the Constitution, incorporating concepts that affirm God over government (“…the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind…”). Our unalienable rights originate from our Creator, not government. Examining freedom of speech in this context reveals a motivation for a free exchange of ideas in the pursuit of truth, toward the goal of “…a more perfect Union…” as described in the Preamble to the Constitution.
In recent years there have been limits put on the free exchange of ideas and opinions. The most obvious is “political correctness,” defined by Merriam-Webster as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated.” It leads to acquiescence and provides a mechanism by which individuals and groups can be defined, demonized, and targeted. This creates divisions – ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social groups – that can be exploited by intellectuals, pundits, and politicians with an ever-tightening noose. The concept has evolved to “cancel culture” that refers to withdrawing support for (canceling) someone or something that has spoken or acted in a way deemed objectionable or offensive, typically via social media in the form of group shaming. Both these practices remove individuals and groups from the public square so that their ideas cannot be exchanged – they are effectively silenced. In many cases the opinions expressed reflect those of many if not most citizens.
Freedom of the Press
The third component of the First Amendment is Freedom of the Press. As was the case with Freedom of Speech, it was declared a bulwark of liberty not to be restrained by government. Controversy erupted when President Trump began calling the media “the enemy of the people” but there was no governmental effort to silence the press. Not the case with President Biden and his Department of Homeland Security who created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to coordinate efforts around perceived threats of Russian disinformation campaigns and supposed false claims that Biden has encouraged migrants to overrun the border; clearly the intent is to attack critics of Administration policies. The board is Orwellian in nature, in fact deemed the “Ministry of Truth” by critics over obvious free speech concerns.
Claims of press bias and inaccurate reporting, often by omission extends back over 50 years. The Media Research Center has since 1987 worked to expose leftist bias in news reporting and popular culture. Despite their best efforts, few Americans realize how broadcast and print journalists have evolved into a propaganda arm of the left in general and the Democrat party in particular. Furthermore, in an electronic age where many in Generations X/Y/Z source news via smartphones and tablets, they are at the mercy of Big Tech platforms that actively censor news and viewpoints that oppose their ideology or hinder their political allies. The Founders could never have envisioned large corporate entities concentrated in a few geographic locations with the power to limit information and the ability to communicate in a digital public square.
The Press has been referred to as the Fourth Estate, relating to the three traditional estates of church, nobility, and commoners. In a representative republic, it both informs the citizenry and provides feedback to the government. The Founders believed that the press plays an indispensable role to hold leaders and institutions accountable. News organizations can expose corruption and cover-ups, fraud, deceit, illegal acts and unethical behavior. However once the news media crosses the ideological line of picking winners and losers – such as reporting corrupt behavior of one side while excusing the exact same behavior engaged in by the other – the citizenry is manipulated. It not only fails its mission, it does a great disservice.
A few weeks after the 2020 election, the Media Research Center published a poll showing that the media’s lack of coverage coupled with social media suppression of anti-Biden and pro-Trump stories impacted voter choices. One out of six Biden voters said they would have changed their vote had they known about at least one of eight specific stories they were polled on. The report claims the vote shift would have moved six swing states into Trump’s column and delivered him victory.
U.S Congressmen Abridge Freedom of the Press
Despite it being undeniable that the media tilts left, in February 2021 two members of Congress sent letters, on Congressional letterhead, to the country’s largest communications corporations pressuring them to remove conservative outlets from their platforms based on the member’s definition of “misinformation.” To citizens subjected to four years on non-stop press coverage of Trump-Russia collusion that turned out to be completely false and for which news organizations received Pulitzer Prizes, this represents a world upside down. Though not passing any law banning these outlets, they are walking up to the line of Constitutionality with an attempt to restrain press freedoms that inform the citizenry and reflect public opinion.
This frightening escalation of “cancel culture” is meant to silence opposition to the leftist agenda. If their plans for the country are virtuous and deserving of support, they should be fully transparent and convince people that it is in their best interest to support them.
Last edited: February 3, 2023