Free speech rights belong to the people…
Does David Shaw understand the First Amendment? Apparently not:
Are bloggers entitled to the same constitutional protection as traditional print and broadcast journalists?
Given the explosive growth of the blogosphere, some judge is bound to rule on the question one day soon, and when he does, I hope he says the nation’s estimated 8 million bloggers are not entitled to the same constitutional protection as traditional journalists–essentially newspaper, magazine, radio and television reporters and editors.
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.
Anyone see the words “journalism” or “journalist” anywhere? I don’t.
That’s because the institution of journalism as we understand it today did not exist at the time of the constitutional convention. The institution that Shaw would have usurp our rights is included in the First Amendment by the natural growth of a living document. The people created the institution of journalism and, therefore, it is a protected profession because we the people have freedom of speech and of the press. We the people, not just a subset called professional journalists.
(BTW, in the earliest conceptions of the 1st A., free speech referred to the rights of state legislators. And the press referred to partisan political rags published by factions and individual politicians.)
We should certainly debate who our shield laws should cover (the focus of Shaw’s column). But, before attempting such a thing, one must come to the debate armed with basic facts about the history of the First Amendment.
The First Five Freedoms
Don’t Fear the Blogger
ac, can you provide any insight into what happens behind the scenes when Shaw (or any generic) writes a column that get as much criticism from peers as this?
S- Not really. It all depends on the culture of the particular news organization and the good graces in which the journalist in question is held. Attacking bloggers is a safe issue now–safe enough to display gross ignorance of the First Amendment and have the column pass editorial muster. But, then, it is a common misconception among journalists that the First Amendment specifically and primarily protects their profession. It does not. It protects the rights of the people, not an institution. The people have the right to freedom of the press, and that is why the institution of journalism has freedom of the press.
Strict constructionism? It warms my heart to read it.
Charles! I’m glad you’re back!
Let’s just say I’m inconsistently “originalist”–to use Scalia’s term for it. I’m perfectly willing to allow the Constitution to “live” when its 18th C. understandings utterly fail to meet our present needs. The 1st A., however, appears to me to be perfect as it is (as does most of the Bill of Rights).
OT: Is a transactionalist related to Peircean philosophy?
I think I answered my own question above. Were you aware of this site: Transactional View
S- Sort of. I refer to transactionalism in rhetoric (and the noetic field) as defined by James Berlin in “Rhetoric and Reality”: “Transactional rhetoric is based on an epistemology that sees truth as arising out of the interaction of the elements of the rhetorical situation: an interaction of subject and object or of subject and audience or even of all the elements–subject, object audience, and language–operating simultaneously.”
Is it possible to be a “Reality-transforming” transactionalist?