“The
Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only
because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by
explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great
division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very
dangerous & sick!”
-- President
Donald Trump, August 5, 2018
In the wake of our county
commissioners “waving a partisan political flag” and ridiculously
designating Scioto County, Ohio as a “Second Amendment Sanctuary”
in the name of opposition to any and all gun control measures to
alleviate the epidemic of gun violence in America, I propose an
alternative moniker that represents opposition to a true danger for
all.
Why don't the
commissioners designate Scioto County as a “First Amendment
Sanctuary” since freedom and liberty are currently under attack by
a narcissist, narrow-minded, incompetent president? If county
governments must now make vaulted affirmations to uphold the Constitution, then declaring undying allegiance to freedom of the press is much more
pertinent to current threats to the people of this nation.
Unlike the banner of a Gun
Sanctuary, a First Amendment declaration would speak for all
concerned citizens. Unlike a Gun Sanctuary, a First Amendment
Sanctuary would defend freedom, liberty, and justice – much more
important than the archaic idea of maintaining and a well-regulated
militia. (Besides, isn't that we know as the National Guard?)
In this post-truth
climate, powerful figures like President Trump and Russia’s
Vladimir Putin are outwardly hostile to journalists and mainstream
reporting processes. U.S. National Intelligence alleged that Russia
created fake news to manipulate the 2016 Presidential election and
Trump has further fueled public mistrust by calling journalists “the
most dishonest human beings on earth.”
Thus, Trump defiles the
First Amendment. He observes no appropriate concern for important
freedoms while denouncing the press. As he sows the seeds of “fake
news” for his own political interests, he corrodes trust from the
public in media.
Fox News host Chris
Wallace says …
"He (Trump) has
done everything he can to undercut the media, to try and delegitimize
us, and I think his purpose is clear – to raise doubts when we
report critically about him and his administration that we can be
trusted,"
In a stream of posts on
Twitter, Trump continues to declare that the press is the “enemy of
the people” asserting that a free press can even "cause war.”
Many, including most
recently some 350 newspaper editorial boards, have bemoaned President
Donald Trump’s attacks on freedoms of speech and press. What is at
stake here? He has challenged a number of core principles associated
with the First Amendment. These principles, and the values they
support, are not partisan. They benefit us all, and so threats
against them ought to concern us all.
“Censorial
power is in the people over the government,
not in the
government over the people.”
– James
Madison
Of course, in Trump's
defense, the press makes erroneous statements and sometimes abuses
its own powers. This is part of the nature of a free press, and we
always must carefully consider the balance between press freedoms and
reputational harms. Also, it is incumbent on an intelligent citizen
to gain skills to judge facts from half-truths and lies.
But, we must remember a
case decided in 1931, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697. It
represents a landmark United States Supreme Court decision under
which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of
the press as protected under the First Amendment.
In that decision, the
Supreme Court reminded us that “to the press alone the world is
indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and
humanity over error and oppression.” This principle has been
applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence.
Near v. Minnesota also
credited the press with helping transform the United States from a
“sickly Confederation” into a “free and independent nation.”
Protection of a free press is vital to public understanding in these
times of increased government malfeasance and corruption. We need a
vigilant and courageous press more than ever before.
In his vindictive nature,
Trump has sought to resurrect sedition. Trump has rewarded those who
praise him and sought to punish his critics. Timothy Zick, John
Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship at William &
Mary Law School, says …
“Whether it takes the
form of revoking the security clearances of former intelligence
officials, or blocking critics from his Twitter timeline, this is a
censorial abuse of executive power. It matters not whether the former
official has a legal right to the clearance or the Twitter user has a
right to comment. There is a corollary First Amendment principle at
work, namely that when the government makes a benefit available it
cannot deny or condition its continued enjoyment upon the suppression
of official criticism. If the people are to govern, punishment for
sedition cannot stand.”
To Trump, anyone writing
about his innumerable miscues and bigoted words is an enemy of the
State. Coming from an emotional president and commander-in-chief,
Trump's words are the real and present danger. Robert
H. Jackson (1892-1954), Associate Justice of the United States
Supreme Court wrote in 1938: “If there is any fixed star in our
constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty,
can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism,
religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by
word or act their faith therein.”
From his presidential
seat, Trump has repeatedly attacked the media and derided what he
labels “fake news” coverage. “Fake news” to Trump is often
accurate but unflattering. He has even railed against libel laws and
has suggested the time is ripe to “open (the laws) up” so that
when the press “writes purposely negative and horrible and false
articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”
Former CBS News colleague
Lesley Stahl interviewed Trump for “60 Minutes.” Shortly after
the interview, she says she told him that his constant bashing of the
media was tiresome. “Why are you doing it?” she said. She asked
him: “You're doing it over and over and it’s boring. It’s time
to end that; you’ve won the nomination. And why do you keep
hammering at this?”
According to Stahl, the
man who would be president responded with this:
“You know why I do
it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write
negative stories about me no one will believe you.”
To Trump this “fake
news” bleating is manipulative and defensive – certainly in line
with his dishonest, narcissistic character. To Bernard Goldberg, an
Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award-winning writer
and journalist, Trump's claims are far more deeply troubling. As he
enumerates how Trump's press views are disturbing, Goldberg says …
“One is that he
doesn’t understand that, in a free country, we need not only a free
press but also a press that has the trust of the American people.
Yes, journalists have done their share to discredit themselves. But
we don’t need the president contributing to what is already an
unhealthy situation.
“Another takeaway is
that he does understand but doesn’t care. All that counts, as far
as Trump is concerned, is that Trump looks good …
“And here’s the
worst part: Even if there were incontrovertible proof substantiating
what Stahl says, even if there were a videotape of Trump saying he
attacks journalists so the public at large won’t believe them when
they report something negative about him, the president’s most
devoted fans almost certainly wouldn’t care. They love him and they
hate the media. And if the president lies about journalists to cover
his own lies — well, that, I’m confident, would be no big deal as
far as those who adore him are concerned.”
(Bernard
Goldberg. “The worst thing about Trump's 'fake news' warning.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/469408-the-worst-thing-about-trumps-fake-news-warning
The
Hill. November 11, 2019.)
Research published in the
journal Personality and Individual Differences finds
Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to
consider overt lying on the part of a politician morally acceptable
behavior. This difference is largely driven by Trump supporters'
endorsement of authoritarianism.
Experimental analyses by
Oliver Hahl , Minjae Kim, and Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivanb published in
the American Sociological Review
(2018) provide clear support for the proposed resolution of the
puzzle of how a lying demagogue may be viewed as more authentic than
a candidate who neither lies nor flagrantly violates
publicly-endorsed norms.
The theory revolves around
two ideas:
- A political candidate can achieve a perception of authenticity in two ways—via sincerity and via authentic championhood; and
- Members of aggrieved social categories in a crisis of legitimacy will be motivated to see the lying demagogue as an authentic champion.
(Hahl, O.,
Kim, M., & Zuckerman Sivan, E. W. “The Authentic Appeal
of the
Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth
About
Political Illigitimacy.” SocArXiv. July 25, 2017.)
For
the reasons stated above, I am proposing our wise and responsible
county commissioners – executives of our local government –
repeal the Second Amendment Sanctuary designation and immediately
establish a First Amendment Sanctuary in Scioto County.
What is more
pressing and more beneficial to the citizens – defending militia
actions and the stockpiling of weapons without desired, protective
restraints or defending a free press and its dissemination of the
truth against the damage inflicted by a lying demagogue? To me and
many others, the answer is clear.
“Where
the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”
No comments:
Post a Comment