A condensed history of free speech

Back in 1989 Anthony Lewis wrote the book "Gideon's Trumpet" about the legal case that now requires that poor people have legal counsel for a trial. Lewis' latest book is "Freedom for the Thought We Hate" which is a history of the First Amendment. This article is an interview with the author by Harper's Magazine blogger Scott Horton who tracks all kinds of government shenanigans. Some of the things I learned:

The first big attack on the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech) was the 1798 Alien and Sedition Act. The Constitution was less than a decade old at the time and war with France was threatening. The basic issue presented to the people was a tradeoff between freedom and security from an attack by a foreign power. But some said it was a way for the government to operate in secret (sound familiar?). When foreign relations are conducted in secret the government can disclose whatever will put itself in the best light and the people have insufficient data and experience to judge for themselves. The gov't can lie by telling most of the truth. It is the press that must serve as the watchdog which, in the war with Iraq, they failed miserably. At least the New York Times and Washington Post eventually apologized.

That conflict between freedom and security usually came out on the side of security until 1931 (even though most of the Sedition Act was repealed in 1802). Prior to that date the freedom of speech really didn't mean much. The Saturday Press, a highly anti-Semitic newspaper in Minnesota, linked government officials to gangsters. The paper was shut down and the case went to the Supremes. They said it was a free speech violation because the gov't didn't determine if the paper was truthful (which it was, in this instance) before shutting them down. Today, with most newspapers owned by chains instead of by locals the bottom line has become more important than muckraking. And when the bottom line rules there is no desire to cross those in power.

Today, the concept of free speech seems pretty well entrenched, with even justices such as Scalia aggressively defending it. Retreat now seems unlikely, at least by the Supremes. However, since Vietnam, the US military has been working harder to control the message that journalists produce, even holding up "security clearances" and holding trials against non-American journalists that work for American news companies.

There is one problem in free speech and that is in campaign finance. Lewis thinks the Supremes are wrong in defining campaign spending as a form of speech. Campaign money will continue to be a problem until that definition is thrown out. Yes, money talks. And that's the problem.