Logic Times

Pernicious Tendencies

Posted by Aslan, 1/26/05, 11:41pm.   Comments (0)

Constitution of the United States

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

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.

What is meant by the phrase violate the First Amendment when applied to matters of speech? Historically, this phrase has referred to actions that suppress or "abridge" free speech or freedom of the Press. The definition of violate, however, has violence as its root (from the Latin violatus) and means to "do violence," to break, to disregard.  One can, as the Founders feared, do violence to the First Amendment through "abridging" speech, but one can also do violence through the irresponsible abuse of its freedoms.

Today, the evidence strongly suggests that violate the First Amendment more aptly describes the unethical excesses of the Press rather than limitations on their activity.  

The trusty example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater has long illustrated that the First Amendment does not guarantee speech without limits, without some burden of responsibility.  And clearly the consequences associated with speech are what bring about those limits (the consequences of panic and injury limit the freedom to shout, "Fire!").   

Today, the Press does not acknowledge limits and disdains responsibility.  Seymour Hersh and Barton Gellman, authors of two recent damaging exposés of US intelligence operations (here and here), demonstrate their total ignorance of the common law roots of the First Amendment (discussion here), or else they would understand the importance of these words of Sir William Blackstone:

''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.'' (emphasis mine)

Question: Is disclosing the secret intelligence activities of US personnel in Iran a "pernicious tendency," Seymour Hersh? (per·ni·cious -  adj. a. Tending to cause death or serious injury; deadly: b. Causing great harm; destructive).

Question: Does revealing the existence of a covert group charged with developing intelligence for military operations reveal a "pernicious tendency," Barton Gellman?

In 1944, the Press understood what Mr. Hersh and Mr. Gellman do not. Exercise Tiger, five weeks before D-Day, prepared US troops for the Normandy invasion of France.  Select members of the press, among others, witnessed that massive exercise, where tragically 749 soldiers were killed when German E-boats slipped past patrols to torpedo vulnerable ships engaged in training.  Despite this tragedy, secrecy was maintained and Operation Overlord was a success.  

Does anyone doubt for one millisecond that the journalistic sleaze known as Seymour Hersh and Barton Gellman would have exposed the tragedy that occurred during Exercise Tiger?

The long feared abuse of the First Amendment has arrived, and it is not the sound of fascist jackboots we hear, but the pernicious tendencies of a Press that hates a strong America.  Remember the three-century old wisdom of Sir Blackstone: "the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects."  

Copyright ©  2005 Dan Hallagan. All Rights Reserved.