Media Musings: Trading rights for security
History shows us fear moves the nation into a period where personal freedoms are at risk. So it was with the 9/11 attacks that led to the Patriot Act and unheard of measures at airports, seaports, and at the local level to prevent another great tragedy.
The question in all of our history has been the one addressed early-on in the 20th century, when the government smashed the aborning Socialist press and found a Supreme Court willing to allow its obvious violation of freedom of the press found in the First Amendment.
When the second Red Scare came during the ’50s – destroying the careers of many artists in Hollywood and in the performing arts – again the Supreme Court failed to sustain the right of freedom of assembly and speech but reversed itself only a few years later.
There was an evolution of legal doctrine and the rise of pressure groups that left us at the dawn of the 21st century more willing to not only allow dissent, but to understand that truth sometimes comes in very different clothing than the majority might wear.
While still struggling at this hour with such issues as the role religion should play in a secular government and fearful of betrayal by speech, the nation had come to a point that terrible excess would be challenged in the courts, which have become an ally ofFirst Amendment advocates.
Thus the news that the First Amendment Center’s latest poll – done in collaboration with the American Journalism Review magazine – finds us reconsidering our position and returning to pre-attack support of First Amendment freedoms is encouraging.
The major shift is shown in support for the five freedoms found in the First Amendment, up 13 percent from the low-point to 60 percent. That percentage is 2 points above the 2001 finding.
There are many ways to interpret such numbers, but it isn’t unreasonable to suggest that we’re starting to live with the “new” America of terrorism warnings, secret courts, racial profiling, and a CIA-FBI joint effort to protect us.
Also, stunning attempts by Adm. John Poindexter to first build a national data bank on all Americans in his role at a new Pentagon bureaucracy (not to mention his latest futures market approach on assassinations and the tenure of some world leaders), have damaged the confidence many had that the government appeared to be working in the correct direction. His resignation showed Congress does have limits on what is acceptable in a nation that prides itself on freedom for its people.
The poll revealed that the Dixie Chicks brouhaha has been a media event more than a free speech battle. The survey found 75 percent of the respondents said people should be allowed to air unpopular opinion. You may remember the firing of satirist Bill Maher for his remarks on ABC-TV about the terrorists being heroes to our enemies. I thought a wise observation at the time was made that our national pain was so great and so intense we weren’t ready for that kind of truth. We were suffering too much to handle it at that point but could handle it now.
Polls are snapshots of us taken at one point in time. The poll taken next year will show the shifts of opinion that take place because of current events. But the more people realize the excesses in the Patriot Act – acknowledging there were serious problems that needed to be remedied – the more hope we can have for a balanced approach.
As Attorney General John Ashcroft is preparing to ask for an even tougher version of the Patriot Act, he will have to prove his case to an ever more concerned people and their representatives.
History should be on our side. But we’ve never lived like this before now. The outcome, of course, is yet to be seen.
(Ed Kimbrell is a professor in MTSU’s School of Journalism.)