The First Amendment Under Fire

Recent Attacks on Basic Rights Suggest Where the Battle Will Take Us

Amendment I

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.

When James Dobson and the American Civil Liberties Union agree that a piece of legislation is dangerous, take note! Such was the case with Senate Bill 1, Section 220 as it was introduced in 2007 after Democrats regained control of Congress. The legislation, basically lobbying reform, strayed from the path when it laid out clear provisions for criminalizing 'grassroots' lobbying. It would have required grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress, as lobbyists must do. Substantial penalties were perscribed for non-compliance. The bill was amended January 9th, creating criminal penalties, including prison sentences, for someone who "knowingly and willingly fails to file or report."

The Bill Put Undue Burden on 'Grassroots' Lobbying Efforts while exempting larger entities such as Unions, Corporations and Entities with Large Memberships.

2009 may well see an attempt to reinstate the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' in broadcasting. It was done away with in the 1980's and that led to a whole plethora of programs devoted to discussion of issues. Most notable was the Rush Limbaugh Show, where an alternative viewpoint actually was offered to the so-called 'mainstream media.' The demise of the 'Fairness' Doctrine actually led to more and varied program formats. I was riding in a cab in Seattle when the driver clicked on a rather left-leaning program, obviously an attempt to provide a Limbaugh-like forum for the more liberal perspective. Clearly neither program would have happened under the old 'Fairness' Doctrine. The fact that both exist proves the legislation is unnecessary.

No doubt, the reinstatement of the 'Fairness' Doctrine would push talk shows and their listeners to the internet. An even more chilling effect of this legislation is the very real possibility that Religious stations would be forced to air "opposing views." I'll leave the full scope of what that could mean to your imagination, but the recent ruling reqiuring Christian dating site: E Harmony to provide Gay matchmaking services should serve as some indication. The same judges might decide what "opposing views" should consist of, effectively eliminating Faith-based media. That tramples on two clauses of the First Amendment as I read it.

The protection of basic liberties will require some heroic effort in the days ahead.