From my understanding of the reading, in order to uphold those very values of freedom of expression, we should practice tolerance and grant breathing space for ideas while discouraging stopping the dissemination of ideas before they reach the public (even if those ideas are toxic to all hell). In addition to exceptions to allowable speech like obscenity and incitement to violence that we've hashed out already, I found conflicts to national interest fascinating to think about in terms of where we draw the line between speech that is too "dangerous" to be published. In New York Times v United States (1971), SCOTUS determined the government needed a damn good reason plus burden of proof to issue a prior restraint, and allowed the publication of the contents of the Pentagon Papers, which was fine, but are we putting too much emphasis on the 1st Amendment and not enough on other areas of the Constitution?
I definitely understand the reasoning for allowing secret government information to be published and don't trust the government to decide what is a conflict of national interest, but at the same time, we have to consider how much things have changed since the case, let alone since the 1st Amendment was passed. Today, we see examples where the First Amendment's meaning is stretched to the limit; there's no way the 1st Amendment could foresee the proliferation of information via sites like WikiLeaks. Additionally, a more recent example is during Citizens United v FEC (2010) when SCOTUS determined monetary spending was political speech, therefore was protected AKA we granted corporations the rights of individuals, which kind of makes sense, but is still absurd to think about. As we move forward, does the First Amendment still stand strong in an environment that puts the scopes of freedom of expression into question?
I definitely understand the reasoning for allowing secret government information to be published and don't trust the government to decide what is a conflict of national interest, but at the same time, we have to consider how much things have changed since the case, let alone since the 1st Amendment was passed. Today, we see examples where the First Amendment's meaning is stretched to the limit; there's no way the 1st Amendment could foresee the proliferation of information via sites like WikiLeaks. Additionally, a more recent example is during Citizens United v FEC (2010) when SCOTUS determined monetary spending was political speech, therefore was protected AKA we granted corporations the rights of individuals, which kind of makes sense, but is still absurd to think about. As we move forward, does the First Amendment still stand strong in an environment that puts the scopes of freedom of expression into question?
I believe this is very true we see the amount of things that are regulated or controlled by our government and how we see the excuse is that it's for our own good, but I would challenge this by asking who defines public interest and how is it used within the confines of prior restraint, because if it is a matter of national security then what is the imminent threat to our country by releasing some of this information.
ReplyDelete