Logic Times

Pernicious Tendencies

Posted by Aslan, 1/26/05, 11:41pm. Comments (5)

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.

The evidence today 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?

New Question: Is publishing unsubstantiated rumors (later proven to be untrue) from an anonymous source about U.S. military personnel defiling the holy book of Islam at a time when the U.S. is at war with Islamic fundamentalists and trying to woo Islamic moderates a "pernicious tendency," Michael Isikoff? Let's see, 20 dead, 100 wounded as of 5/16. Seems fairly pernicious to me.

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."

Comments

1: Jonathan Gardner

February 3, 2005 05:00pm EST

What you are saying makes a great deal of sense. It is obvious today that many in the press are cheering for our enemies and doing whatever they can to subvert our national interests or even cause harm or ruin on our country. But what is our recourse?

Is it possible to bring these people to trial? Who would prosecute the case? What court would accept the case? What punishment should be meted? If we can prove that exposing this organization has lead to the deaths of American soldiers, can we charge the authors and publishers with murder?

{Aslan: Jonathan, I think the problem is one of proving the intent to give “aid and comfort” to our enemies. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution –

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The severity of the punishment for treason suggests the need for clear, overt acts against the United States. In the Aaron Burr trial, Chief Justice "Marshall said that it is not enough to be leagued in a conspiracy; it is necessary to perform a part. That part may be minute, and it may not be actual appearance in arms, but it must be a part of the plan and must be performed by the person charged. Notwithstanding the great efforts of the Jefferson administration to secure the conviction of Burr, the jury was directed by Marshall to return a verdict of not guilty because the testimony offered by the Government was 'irrelevant until there be proof of the overt act by two witnesses.' Burr had been charged with raising troops against the Government, but no proof of overt acts was produced. The feeling ran so high that Marshall was hanged in effigy, but the search of historians has failed to find evidence sufficient under this section to convict Burr of treason" (emphasis mine...source here and here). This suggests that our interpretation of aid and comfort would fall vastly short of that standard.

However, I would be gratified with proper labels. The actions of Hersh and Gellman should not be called journalism, but rather…well…pernicious tendencies, I guess. LOL.}

2: William

February 3, 2005 05:01pm EST

Bravo! Such an understanding of precious tendencies is way over the head of many like Hersh and Gellman.

Restraint by the media today would be about as rare as winning the Lotto. Unfortunately, sleaze and shock news is all that sells anymore, evident by the popularity of supermarket rags and Jerry Springer-like Television shows.

The Sci- FI channel has more responsible reporting. Save us.

3: Mike

May 16, 2005 10:52pm EST

Excellent post Dan.

It's pretty clear that the "mainstream" media errs not on the side of caution or responsibility, but on the side of "oh gee, this will embarrass Bush, let's go with it." That same media always seems to question American motives first and of course this tendency plays right into the hands of our enemies who continue to use such navel gazing in their propaganda to inflame the passions of their ignorant and willing extremist followers.

This same media complains about rendition, where terrorists are turned over to countries with less scrupulous standards for prisoner care and undermines the rather humane handling that many of these scum receive at Guantanamo.

{Aslan: Well said! Mike, in an essay I did last year entitled The Importance of Rathergate, I made the following statement, for which I was criticized – “The modern incarnation of liberalism exists because the fourth estate has abrogated their fundamental responsibility to avoid disinformation.” My point was that, with perfect information, there would be few liberals. Oh, the odd crackpot socialist and tree hugger would be around to amuse us, but most rational people would reject the true face of liberalism (which is secular socialism). I look at the media and I get the sense that rational people everywhere have been checkmated. The left has nothing on their side to redeem their positions, but they control information. And if you control information (and are willing to shape and distort information) you control perception, and perception is reality. So it does not matter that liberty, faith, industry, decency all are on our side, people lack the information to understand that reality. It is frightening.}

4: Larry Horacek

May 17, 2005 12:26am EST

Your earlier article this year was a harbinger of today's Newsweek criminal conduct. Unfortunately, I can think of several reasons why this kind of putrescence will revisit us again, and soon.

Relativism has so pervaded our culture that we now do not understand what the word "restraint" means. For example, it is fatally twisted logic when the ACLU defends pornography as a first amendment issue, while the time-tested value of public decency as reflected in our statutes and laws are obfuscated and trivialized. Sadly, too many citizens buy into the ACLU faux argument and the clear evil of pornography has been made a little more acceptable in our society, and our society a little more cheapened and depraved as a result. Presented in a different way, can anyone explain why the literate American public just had to have this (explosive, unsubstantiated, and controversial) Isakiff article about interrogations in a prison? Where is restraint?
Bias is at the heart of this current trend of reports designed to denigrate and demean the US and its uniformed troops. In previous generations, Isikoff's article would have been spiked for what it is...fiction. However, after the feeding frenzy of Abu Ghraib, journalists sensed blood in the water and the Newsweek article builds on it, almost prosecutorial in its tenor and claim. The fact that the Isikoff story DIDN'T get spiked should tell us all a lot about continuing bias in reporting. Just why are magazines like Newsweek pursuing this kind of story? Think about it.
The Jason Blair episode did not do anything to arrest journalistic excessiveness. Blair barely got a hand slap. Dan Rather's punishment for fraud at the highest level...having to step down from the evening news...is laughable. The lesson: if you make a mistake, even a dishonest one, it is only a momentary setback. In the criminal justice system, when the bad guys start taking advantage of the law, the penalties get stiffer which, thereby, deter future violations. It would appear that the opposite is happening in journalism and the media.

I could go on but I think you catch the trend of my argument. Leaving journalists to police their own is becoming more like leaving the "faux" in the hen house.

{Aslan: Larry, very perceptive – I like the close! Yet, I would take your one comment under point two, and go further – "In previous generations, Isikoff's article would have been spiked for what it is...fiction." In previous generations, that article – TRUE OR FALSE – would have been spiked for what it was…counterproductive to the U.S. war on terrorism.}

5: Stuart Cvrk

May 17, 2005 09:56am EST

A simple solution: find a trial lawyer willing to represent the victims' families in a lawsuit against Isikoff and Newsweek. How much are a dozen lives worth? Enough to make Newsweek (and their parent, the Washington Post Company) go belly-up. That would be fitting justice and send a clear message to the Left-wing press.

{Aslan: Stuart, I would quit my job to sit in front of the television and watch that trial from gavel to gavel.}