{"id":193861,"date":"2017-05-20T06:30:07","date_gmt":"2017-05-20T10:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-often-challenged-but-consistently-enduring-washington-post\/"},"modified":"2017-05-20T06:30:07","modified_gmt":"2017-05-20T10:30:07","slug":"first-amendment-often-challenged-but-consistently-enduring-washington-post","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/first-amendment-often-challenged-but-consistently-enduring-washington-post\/","title":{"rendered":"First Amendment: often challenged but consistently enduring &#8211; Washington Post"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    By Roy S. Gutterman By    Roy S. Gutterman    May 19 at 9:43 AM  <\/p>\n<p>      Roy S. Gutterman is an associate professor and director of      the Tully Center for Free Speech at the S.I. Newhouse School      of Public Communications at Syracuse University.    <\/p>\n<p>    When protesters recently shouted    conservative firebrands Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos    off the University of California at Berkeley campus, the irony    surrounding these two separate but related incidents was as    bright as the fires that the protesters ignited, nearly burning    down an academic building. How could the birthplace of the    1960s free speech movement be so hostile to opposing    viewpoints?  <\/p>\n<p>    A university should be a place where discussion and debate    flourish. In this case, speakers on one side of the debate had    no trouble articulating their viewpoint, while they silenced    speakers on the other side of the table. This not only stifles    the marketplace of ideas, it also runs counter    to the values of the First Amendment.  <\/p>\n<p>    While conservative opinions were targeted at Berkeley,    challenges to free speech come from across the political    spectrum. President Trumps declaration that    the press is the enemy of the American people was one of    his sharpest attacks against journalists and the Fourth Estate.    It built on his other promises to crack down on leaks to    journalists, as well as his campaign rhetoric naming and    personally insulting reporters, and pledging to crack down on    opponents and open up libel law to make it easier to recover    damages from the press.  <\/p>\n<p>    [Pray for the First    Amendment. Now.]  <\/p>\n<p>    Yet in the face of the rhetoric, the vitriol and the tweets,    citizens and the press are still able to draw on the power and    permanence of the First Amendment. Floyd Abrams, perhaps    the countrys most    prominent First Amendment and media lawyer, makes his    latest case defending free speech and press rights in his book    The Soul of the First Amendment. Abramss thesis is that    speech and press rights are woven into the fabric of America    and set the United States apart from the rest of the world.    These inherently human rights are akin to freedom of    conscience and lead citizens to achieve self-fulfillment    through speech, expression, publication and the free flow of    information.  <\/p>\n<p>    A series of six essays, The Soul of the First Amendment is a    quick read, and at about 140 pages, considerably thinner than    Abramss other books on the topic, particularly his recent    books Friend of the Court (2013) and Speaking Freely    (2005). These essays are readable and comprehensible to both a    specialized audience of lawyers and laypeople just looking to    understand a little more about these rights.  <\/p>\n<p>    The books brevity does not detract from its substance or    clarity as Abrams explains the origins and tensions of the    First Amendment. He dives into historic and contemporary    controversies that test our adherence to these principles,    noting, Speech is sometimes ugly, outrageous, even dangerous.  <\/p>\n<p>    The journey of the First Amendment begins at the Constitutional    Convention in 1787 and with the vision of James Madison and the    framers who emerged from the Revolution skeptical of    governments power over the people, and governments propensity    to abuse that power through censorship or aggressive    application of laws to punish speech or dissent.  <\/p>\n<p>    The notion that First Amendment interests are served whenever    laws genuinely reflect public opinion also seems to overlook    the reality that the public too often seeks to suppress speech    it disapproves of, he writes.  <\/p>\n<p>    The road, however, is littered with the carcasses of dissidents    and offensive speakers. Threats to speech are discussed    throughout the book, including the Sedition Act of 1798; the    Espionage Act of 1917; and the jailing of abolitionist    journalists during the Civil War or communists and socialists    during the Red Scare, McCarthyism and the Cold War. American    history is replete with examples of attacking, punishing,    ostracizing or censoring a range unpopular or offensive    speakers.  <\/p>\n<p>    [Our First Amendment    test is here. We cant afford to flunk it.]  <\/p>\n<p>    As the country has evolved, so has our protection of and    tolerance for free speech and the marketplace of ideas.  <\/p>\n<p>    Abrams supports much of his thesis in a lawyerly fashion,    pointing to Supreme Court precedents and sprinkling in points    from caselaw. It reads like a First Amendments Greatest Hits    compilation. He cites such cases as New York Times v.    Sullivan (1964), which revolutionized libel law and    facilitated robust debate and criticism of public officials and    public policy, particularly civil rights. He describes how in    New York Times v. United States (1971), the Pentagon    Papers case, the Supreme Court stood up to the Nixon    administration by refusing to allow the government to block    publication or censor the Times and The Washington Post, which    were running stories based on leaked top-secret government    documents.  <\/p>\n<p>    The historic and the contemporary are explained and juxtaposed.    For example, Abrams draws comparisons between the Pentagon    Papers and WikiLeaks and the Edward Snowden stories published    by the Guardian. Discussions of public officials and public    figures litigating against the press are compared with recent    threats by President Trump, as well as the Hulk Hogan    invasion-of-privacy verdict against Gawker.  <\/p>\n<p>    Other recent First Amendment challenges are also part of the    discussion, including offensive religious protesters at    military funerals, virtual child pornography, videos depicting    animal abuse, flag burning and other outrageous speech. This    illustrates another theme: It is easy to protect speech that    does not rankle people, but the First Amendment protects ugly    and offensive speech, too. Abrams also devotes a sizable    portion of a chapter to defending the controversial Citizens    United case.  <\/p>\n<p>    Resting nicely on the pedestal Abrams builds, the First    Amendment might be akin to Americas crown jewels, setting us    apart from dictatorships and even other democracies. He writes    that the gulf between the legal protections afforded to free    expression in the United States and those afforded in Europe    remains oceanic.  <\/p>\n<p>    The explication begins with an anecdote from a family cruise in    1976, when his son, Dan, got into a tiff with the ships    British staff, which barred the youth from a viewing of the    PG-rated All the Presidents Men because of profanity. The    aggrieved Dan, who grew up to be a lawyer and legal affairs    reporter, chortled, Thats why we have the First Amendment.  <\/p>\n<p>    Of course, the protections of the First Amendment apply only to    government action and do not reach beyond our borders. However,    this personal story sets the tone that Madison was really onto    something unique.  <\/p>\n<p>    Many other countries have laws protecting and supporting    freedom of speech. However, Abrams notes that in many places,    these pronouncements are mere lip service to such freedoms,    especially in places where journalists and dissidents are    censored, harassed, imprisoned or killed for expressing    themselves.  <\/p>\n<p>    With these countries, there is no comparison and never will be.    Abrams also distinguishes between American values and European    countries, particularly Britain and the European Union, where    libel laws are more plaintiff-friendly and the right to be    forgotten has forced websites and search engines such as    Google to remove hundreds of thousands of articles.    International plaintiffs seek and sometimes find hospitable    jurisdictions in which to litigate and punish the press through    libel tourism.  <\/p>\n<p>    As much as the First Amendment grants us rights to speak and    express ourselves, the amendments construction is a bar on    government power and potentially abuse. Congress shall make no    law is a declaration to people around the world that the    United States reveres our speakers and our government shall not    abuse them.  <\/p>\n<p>    Abrams has spent a lifetime fighting for First Amendment rights     in courtrooms and the court of public opinion. It takes    lawyers and judges to protect these rights and to write the    story of the First Amendment. Abramss tribute to the amendment    comes at a time when many believe that freedom of the press and    freedom of speech are under attack from the highest levels of    government.  <\/p>\n<p>    Lets hope Abrams is writing an homage to the First Amendment,    not its obituary.  <\/p>\n<p>      The Soul of the First Amendment    <\/p>\n<p>      By Floyd Abrams    <\/p>\n<p>      Yale. 145 pp. $26    <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>The rest is here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/first-amendment-often-challenged-but-consistently-enduring\/2017\/05\/19\/92b271ea-18a8-11e7-bcc2-7d1a0973e7b2_story.html\" title=\"First Amendment: often challenged but consistently enduring - Washington Post\">First Amendment: often challenged but consistently enduring - Washington Post<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> By Roy S. Gutterman By Roy S.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/first-amendment-often-challenged-but-consistently-enduring-washington-post\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94877],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193861","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-first-amendment-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193861"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=193861"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193861\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193861"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193861"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}