The Cornerstone To A Free Society Part 1

The Cornerstone To A Free Society


A divergence of views is the corner stone to any free society , this is one of the reasons that in the United States we have the Right of Freedom of Speech guaranteed within the Constitution under the Bill of Rights.

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.

This was ratified on 12/15/1791

James Madison was instrumental in the creation of the Constitution and helped draft the Bill Of Rights , he originally opposed the Idea but when he ran for a seat in the house he used it as part of his campaign. Several delegates to the constitutional convention refused to sign the Constitution on the basis that it did not include the fundamental freedoms that a bill of rights would provide , and to ensure that certain rights were recognized by the government.

Mr. Madison explained in 1799 -- “Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, it would seem scarcely possible to doubt, that no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the Constitution, as it originally stood; and that the [first] amendment was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it.”

Freedom of speech and of the press has served one purpose in America: To remove the fear of the common law doctrine of seditious libel so citizens could freely speak or publish their grievances or concerns regarding public affairs or conduct of public officials. So the intended purpose as we can see was to ensure that the voice of the press or media in more modern days have the right to express opposing view points , and that citizens have the right protected under the constitution to express speech that in some circles would be considered non agreeable or better yet offensive in regards to those who are in controlling power in government.

Mr. Thomas Cooley summed it up well when he wrote about the freedoms found in the constitution regarding freedom of speech:


The mere exemption from previous restraints cannot be all that is secured by the constitutional provisions, inasmuch as of words to be uttered orally there can be no previous censorship, and the liberty of the press might be rendered a mockery and a delusion, and the phrase itself a byword, if, while every man was at liberty to publish what he pleased, the public authorities might nevertheless punish him for harmless publications, … Their purpose [of the free-speech clauses] has evidently been to protect parties in the free publication of matters of public concern, to secure their right to a free discussion of public events and public measures, and to enable every citizen at any time to bring the government and any person in authority to the bar of public opinion by any just criticism upon their conduct in the exercise of the authority which the people have conferred upon them… . The evils to be prevented were not the censorship of the press merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens.


Now we are seeing in 2007-2008 a call from some corners in our government to restrain the freedoms guaranteed in our First Amendment due to the fact that some corners of the media mainly conservative talk radio puts out a alternative message to what these Congressman and Senators would like to see on the air waves , some are even going so far as comparing the expressed views as pornographic in nature and comparing the content with pornography. Knowing full well that what the content embodies is divergent views from what they might consider acceptable.

Most Conservative talk radio in this day and age is the only outlet to find out what is actually going on in our government , it is uncensored to a extent that those in government are held accountable for the actions that they exercise . Many in leading roles of government would like to see this medium go to the wayside , not because of the opposing view point to what is expressed on these shows are not allowed outlets of there own , but because the content of the subject matter.

The subject matter is what exposes those in government to the common person on the street and allows them with a medium of information that they can then disseminate and pass judgment for themselves. If we are to allow ourselves to become sole dependent on the media that is pre approved and pre packaged by those that would decide, what should and should not be allowed to be exposed to the general public , we than have a degree of censorship taking place where only one side of a story is being told. At that point a consensus of free thought is allowed to be taken away and a medium of thought control is put into place.

What some in congress and now in the presidency are trying to equate with reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine as a control over the free expression of divergent views or in their words Pornographic content , it is their belief that the material and subject matter is seditious “that it brings into hatred or contempt”. One needs to look at that in it’s full scope , why would they consider a free discussion over subject matter that the public should be aware of as seditious?

One might ask that if something that the government or those in control of government had full transparency and were not at all worried that the general public would not be in full approval of the job or the legislation that they propose there would not be a need for such a hindrance on free speech as the Fairness Doctrine.


The Fairness Doctrine as we know it today is not being sought for reinstatement for the same reasons as it’s original conception even thought the argument for such a reinstatement is being bantered about. The originating conception for the Fairness Doctrine stemmed from the large numbers of applications in the late 1940’s from Radio stations and the limited number of frequencies available at the time . Broadcasters were required to make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view.