April 23rd, 2008
In just a matter of weeks, Congress in February passed a bipartisan “economic stimulus package” featuring tax rebates to spark the badly sagging U.S. economy. The one-time tax break is a very short-term fix, if that. The bigger, long-term issue is America’s eroding stature in the global marketplace.
So what’s really needed is an intellectual stimulus package — something to re-invigorate the nation’s imagination, inquisitiveness and experimentation. Giving some tax money back is nice but not enough to accomplish this. No, what we need is for government to give some liberty back. Don’t just soften the tax bite. Curtail the stifling influence of Big Brother the censor.
Here’s my suggested start for a 2008 intellectual stimulus package:
1. Accord free expression to students. Correct the uncertainty created by recent Supreme Court rulings; extend clear and reasonable freedom-of-expression rights to students at public high schools and colleges.
2. Fully protect truthful advertising. Dump the commercial speech doctrine that treats sponsored messages as second class under the First Amendment. Get government out of the buiness of trying to engineer what we hear from consumer-products companies.
3. Open up political discourse. Repeal all the arbitrary restrictions on political expenditures by individuals or corporations.
4. Stop dictating broadcast content. A governmental system for orderly allotment of the broadcast spectrum is one thing. But attempting to engineer and censor content is something else. It’s stifling, counter-productive, and insulting.
5. Pass a national shield law for journalists. Government is too tempted to issue subpoenas to the news media, treating the “fourth estate” like an arm of law enforcement.
Posted in Commentary | No Comments »
March 11th, 2008
In January President Bush, in the face of a recession, publicly advocated for an “economic stimulus package” of tax relief to jolt the ailing economy. Congress acted with relative swiftness, and Bush signed the $168-billion package in February.
Sure would be nice if government would act with similar haste to also deliver an intellectual-stimulus package — something to clear the way for more creative and robust discourse. Such discourse is at a premium, with mounting and seemingly intractable problems at home and with an increasingly competitive global marketplace. It would be a golden investment in the future.
Here’s four easy steps that would head things in the right direction:
1. Enact bold legislation to clarify and safeguard the free-speech rights of students. Recent court rulings have left students’ First Amendment rights too foggy and compromised. A habit of lively discourse should begin early in life.
2. Repeal all restrictions on political contributions and expenditures — by individuals or corporations. These arbitrary limitations are not serving to improve the quality or fairness of public debate, or of campaigns. They most certainly do, however, limit free expression.
3. Repeal all restraints on truthful commercial speech. So long as advertising is not harmfully deceptive, there is no valid justification for Big Brother’s burdening commercial expression in ways that would be shocking if applied to social or political speech.
4. Enact a national “shield law” for the news media. This would help ensure that news organizations can investigate and report stories aggressively — without diverting resources and jeopardizing sources in the process of answering government subpoenas.
Posted in Commentary | No Comments »
December 28th, 2007
Every now and then it’s good to reread the Declaration of Independence, that most eloquent testament to personal liberty and independent thought — and to government’s proper role as a protector of these rights. This morning I found myself reflecting, once again, on Jefferson’s critical words about the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These are natural rights of all individuals, equally. And that simple fact also necessarily moderates the rights. A person cannot exercise his or her liberty of thought and action to the point of preventing others from doing the same. In a society, there can be no liberty to assault or otherwise directly victimize others. Yet on the other hand, in a free society persons cannot be considererd victims by the mere fact that they are offended or made uncomfortable by others’ thoughts and actions. While out and about, there can be no right to a perfectly agreeable environment.
These are bedrock principles, echoed in our First Amendment law of free expression. Early cases recognized that speech could be prohibited where it would likely result in direct, physical harm to others, for example. Cases going back some 50 years also made it clear, however, that government is not empowered to proscribe expression on the ground that it is politically unpopular, or harsh, or unrefined.
But in recent years there has been an increasing tendency for constituents to elicit their public officials’ help to silence their neighbors and control the marketplace of expression. And government has too often been quick to comply, enacting restrictions, sometimes with a green light from the courts. Whether it’s corporate political expression that some fear too persuasive, broadcast images that some deem too “indecent,” or flag-burning demonstrations that some consider too insolent, government regulation for such reasons poses great danger to the core concept of a nation built on liberty.
Posted in Commentary | No Comments »
September 30th, 2007
As the Supreme Court begins its 2007-08 term we can only hope it finds a case to redeem itself from the thud and intellectual debris that ended the last term in Morse v. Frederick. That’s the case in which student Joseph Frederick unfurled a banner with the attention-grabbing words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as Olympic Torch Relay passed in front of his Juneau, Alaska, public high school. Students were given time away from class to attend the parade, but in no other respect was it a school project or event. Nevertheless, the principal swiftly confiscated the banner and then suspended Frederick because, she said, the message celebrated illegal drug use.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and ruled the principal didn’t violate Frederick’s First Amendment freedom. In the Court’s written opinion, Chief Justice Roberts noted Frederick’s motives and the nature of his message and the problem of drug use among young people, as if any of those should determine First Amendment rights. He also noted that “school principals have a difficult job” and deserve some latitude to make on-the-spot decisions. But while that’s certainly true, it’s odd that the Court wouldn’t also discuss Frederick’s liberty and the increasingly difficult job of exercising it in today’s society.
Morse v. Frederick made a further mess of student free-speech law. Clarity is needed both for student speakers and for public school officials. But more broadly, the case raises an alarming prospect: that this Court will work harder to protect government institutions than to safeguard the “unalienable right” of expressive liberty that private individuals and organizations should enjoy.
Posted in Commentary | No Comments »
August 22nd, 2007
Patti Britton, Ph.D., is a nationally board-certified clinical sexologist, sex coach, certified sex educator and president of the American Association for Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists. Through her couples workshops, books, columns, website, videos and clinical practice she has become one of the nation’s best known sex experts.
JZ: Many believe that America is a very open and free nation for sexual expression. Would you agree?
BRITTON: No. Actually, there’s a general societal taboo against truly open sexual expression. And that has a negative effect. Three out of ten men and four out of ten women report having a sexual dysfunction. There are several causes. One is the influence of conservative religious views. People are made to feel guilt, fear and shame. We need to remove the punitive tone around sexual behavior.
JZ: How can that be accomplished?
BRITTON: We need to get government off our backs and out of our bedrooms. It’s like a reign of terror. Sex therapists, for example, should be able to put images on their websites without having to watch their backs. It might not always seem like it, but the fingers of repression are deep.
JZ: Please elaborate. How are people being hurt by government suppression of sexual speech?
BRITTON: Sex education in school. It has to change. Students are getting misinformation because our own government has misappropriated sex education and promulgates inaccurate information about facts of life that can actually put young people at risk for STI’s, pregnancy and worse. Access to accurate sexuality information is a birthright, and students don’t have that in this country. It’s an atrocity. There’s absolutely no sex-positive information about how to be a good lover. So they often need a therapist’s help later. Government contributes to making us sex-phobic. So we can’t openly discuss with young people how to make sex safe or safe sex erotic, which would be a healthier direction.
JZ: How about explicit adult video? Is that a form of expression that deserves First Amendment protection? Or, it is a negative force in our society, as some allege?
BRITTON: As far as I’m concerned, there’s very little content that causes harmful results. There are no studies that demonstrate harmful effects from porn, except maybe with some kinds of violence, which is rare to find within adult content. Then again, violent content is rampant in R-rated movies that promote violence and often link it with sexual imagery or behaviors. Most real pornography is non-threatening, fantasy-based sex – another sexual outlet that may be good for some people. So I’m a pro-porn therapist. For many folks porn is their only positive role modeling for being sexual and offers that needed element of variety. One could even say that having a means to bring variety into sex for married couples saves marriages. The only harm I see is that in some cases it may steal time away from the primary human relationship. And of course, subtly men learn how to pleasure a partner or think what to expect from a woman based on what they feed on in porn. That’s not reality. It is mostly fantasy.
JZ: So, if you controlled the Supreme Court, how would you apply the First Amendment differently?
BRITTON: Erotic and sexual expression should be protected from government intrusion just like other kinds of speech. Sex is an important, highly individual aspect of life. One could make the case that sex is even necessary for your health. There are many different views about it. But government should not be free to take sides and dictate what is acceptable expression. American couples today face an epidemic of low desire and other sexual dysfunctions. So there needs to be an erotophilic celebration in this country, not shame and intolerance. Maybe we could get to the celebration if government got out of the way.
Posted in Interviews | No Comments »
