Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review April 4, 2001 / 11 Nissan, 5761

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


NOW THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR!

http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- IN 1990 the Louisiana Legislature passed a bill that lowered the penalty for beating up a flag-burner to a $25 misdemeanor. Some patriotic Cajuns actually wanted to prepay the fine so they could have a de facto "Open a Can of Whup-a-s on a Long-haired Pinko Permit."

At the time, civil libertarians were kick-the-cat angry about this allegedly nakedly fascist assault on the First Amendment. Me? I admired it as a wonderful example of the spirit of democratic compromise, the delicate balancing of free-speech rights with community standards.

I bring this up to point out that I am no voluptuary of free speech. I don't think it's "censorship" when the government chooses not to subsidize pictures and sculptures that involve either anatomical parts or substances normally associated with the potty. I don't break my pencil in solidarity with the American Civil Liberties Union every time some patchouli-soaked hemptivist isn't allowed to bullhorn a public meeting to his heart's content.

But sometimes even I can get worked up about free speech.

Indeed, this week's campaign-finance debacle has gotten me on my free-speech soapbox. It's the latest example of the inverted world view of liberal reformers, who care so much about their principles when the stakes are low but who are willing to give away the store when the stakes are high.

Consider that the bill just approved by the Senate - the "world's greatest deliberative body," har har - is not only unconstitutional in my own humble opinion, it is unconstitutional in the opinion of its sponsors. Sens. McCain and Feingold conceded last week that big chunks of their legislation will, in all likelihood, be tossed out like month-old bread by the Supreme Court.

That was why the "reformers" opposed an amendment on something called "non-severability." If non-severability had passed, the whole McCain-Feingold law could have been voided if the courts found any part of it unconstitutional. (Promise to readers: I will not use the term non-severability again for at least one year.)

But McCain wasn't overly concerned with the bill's constitutional Achilles' heel. His arguments were the equivalent of Ford saying, "Sure the engine might not work, but that shouldn't stop us from selling the car."

Time to take action!

One need not get misty-eyed over the central role free expression plays in a democracy to recognize that the First Amendment was intended first and foremost to protect political speech.

Yet the founders would have inhaled their snuff boxes whole if they'd been told that in the future, Congress could interpret the First Amendment in such a way that private citizens would be barred from even uttering a politician's name in an advertisement for the two months prior to an election. Not to mention, at the same time, the First Amendment would be construed to guarantee a federal subsidy for crucifixes in urine and other silliness.

This hypocrisy has been the trademark of the press' self-serving coverage of free speech for years. Whenever there is a suggestion that the press' freedom is in danger, the media's cheese slips completely off its cracker; editorial boards wax "deeply concerned" about "chilling effects" and "creeping censorship."

But when somebody else's ox gets gored, or when speech the press doesn't like gets banned, there's nothing but polite applause and cheering.

There was no outcry, for example, when the federal government, in the name of public health, forced tobacco companies to spend billions of their own dollars on speech of the government's choosing. In fact, the media had been clamoring for such an Orwellian move for years.

But when it was revealed that the Clinton White House, in the name of public health, was offering harmless incentives to TV networks to include anti-drug messages in shows like "Touched by an Angel," media pooh-bahs pounded their high chairs. The New York Times fumed that the networks and the government were "crossing a dangerous line they should not cross. On the far side of that line lies the possibility of censorship and state-sponsored propaganda."

Well, now the federal government is well on its way to saying that only newspapers, magazines and news networks have the right to criticize, praise, refute, endorse or even mention politicians during the 60 days prior to an election, i.e. when the public is paying attention. And the elite press, lead by The Times, couldn't be happier.

The fact that Handgun Control Inc. and Greenpeace are barred from running ads in favor of certain politicians, along with the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, shouldn't bother The New York Times that much because, after all, The Times will be left with an even bigger megaphone, now that all of those pesky citizens have been muzzled.

One reason why Greenpeace and other liberal groups aren't concerned that much is because they trust Hollywood, the news networks, and The New York Times and other government-approved media to carry their messages for them.

It makes me want to buy one of those beat-up-a-campaign-finance-reformer permits. I'd even pay a lot more than $25.



To comment on JWR contributor Jonah Goldberg's column click here.

Up


03/30/01: No time to clown around with cloning
03/28/01: Cast a negative ballot for Internet voting
03/23/01: Hollywood's high on action films, for global market success
03/21/01: Republicans should be cautious of 'compassionate conservatism'
03/19/01: "Traffic" moves propaganda into drug-policy debate
03/15/01: Appeal of 'Sopranos' lies in strict code of honor
03/09/01: Organic claims are cleverly written fiction
03/07/01: Snow job: There the media go again
03/02/01: It's a vision thing
02/28/01: SAT is best measure of general aptitude
02/26/01: Easing the estate tax
02/23/01: Clinton defenders finally admit to his power abuses
02/21/01: Failed dot-coms missed rules of the marketplace
02/15/01: Clinton heeds my Harlem advice
02/12/01: Harlem could be Bill's best move yet
02/06/01: Lying, betrayal essential parts of journalism
01/18/01: How to polarize candidates
01/15/01: Dems never tire of using 'race card'
01/11/01: Taking the celebrity out of politics
01/08/01: Unfairly 'borking' Ashcroft
01/04/01: Want to be more efficient? Increase number of politicians
01/02/01: Whole lotta exploitin' goin' on
12/28/00: Hypocrisy police pounce on Clinton book deal
12/26/00: Sometimes, it's good to be a Grinch
12/21/00: Though symbolic, Bush's diversity sends a message
12/19/00: Gore concedes --- but why did it take so long?
12/14/00: Is 'Queer as Folk' what we asked for?
12/11/00: Election mess hardly a 'civics lesson'
12/07/00: Clinton's tacky legacy
12/05/00: Marriage civilizes the manly beast
11/30/00: Gore's speech more pompous posturing
11/28/00: Rabble-rousing Dems act irresponsibly
11/27/00: Duking it out with democracy
11/16/00: Issues irrelevant to most voters
11/14/00: Gore's us-vs.-them campaign
11/10/00: Dot-com disasters missing brand-name success
11/06/00: Conventional wisdom turns with the polls
11/03/00: Clinton photo, appropriately, hits below the belt
11/01/00: Electoral college ensures democracy
10/30/00: New Yorkers, media letting Hillary off the hook
10/23/00: Gore needs to put first things first
10/20/00: Treatment of Farrakhan glosses over odd issues
10/16/00: Secrets of election can be found in 'Star Trek'
10/12/00: Arafat hardly 'provoked' into violence
10/10/00: Undecided voters may be ignorant, not discriminating
10/06/00: The importance of character isn't debatable
10/03/00: Conservatives are the true friends of science You know why?
09/29/00: Symbolic 'born alive' vote makes sense
09/25/00: Conservatives adopt abandoned liberalism
09/21/00: Ventura's media backpedaling makes fiction of his new book
09/18/00: Tough questions target Hillary Clinton's elitism
09/14/00: Hollywood morality to blame
09/11/00: Specifically, AlGore's detailed plan is meaningless
09/07/00: Time-honored tradition: Insult the press
09/05/00: Scouting out justice
08/30/00: The ADL's historical revisionism
08/28/00: Sitcoms will survive, post-"Survivor"
08/24/00: Candidates' choice of movies shows refreshing honesty
08/21/00: An AlGore victory? Only if dead birds fly
08/17/00: AlGore is doomed, but Dems ignore warning signs
08/15/00: Proud and true: He's a Jew
08/10/00: Exploiting religion would be tragic mistake
08/08/00: Cheney serves up tempting appetizer
08/03/00: Republicans now 'nice,' media still nasty
08/01/00: Presidential campaign could use some anti-metric mania
07/27/00: Government shouldn't subsidize Reform Party
07/25/00: Campaign finance 'reform' gives too much power to liberal media
07/20/00: Hillary slur speaks volumes
07/18/00: AlGore's McCarthyism
07/11/00: 'Survivor' shows hypocrisy of animal rights groups
07/05/00: McDonald's deserves a break today
07/03/00: On July Fourth, time to reflect on America's founding
06/28/00: America bashing becomes international pastime
06/23/00: If Fonda is sorry, let her say so
06/06/00: NAPSTER exposes artists' hypocrisy
04/18/00: Not much difference between TV journalists, TV actors

© 2000, TMS