Lobbying for speech

Yesterday in class we discussed the issues of the press (whoever that may be...) to be required to reveal sources. If a privilege were awarded to the press to not be required to respond to a subpoena, content discrimination would no doubt follow so the court could label the plaintiff as press or not. Discrimination based on content is the last thing the Founders would want as this greatly limits free speech. However, the Obama administration has quite recently instated a sort of content discrimination.

This past Friday, lobbyists told the White House ethics chief that the ban forbidding administration officials from meeting lobbyists to discuss the stimulus plan violated their free speech. This ban is part of the March 20 White House memorandum. Lobbyists claim their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon as anyone that is not a registered lobbyist is allowed to discuss the plan with the officials. This is clearly specific discrimination of lobbyist views. Like content discrimination, the government singled out which views would not be allowed to be expressed.

Technically, lobbyists can still communicate with the officials, but they must not discuss specifically the stimulus plan and any contact they have with the officials must be documented in writing with the date and time and issues discussed. Lobbyists, according to this memorandum, shouldn't technically be talking to officials, and if they happen to they better not mention the stimulus plan and what they think of it.

One of Obama's campaign promises was to limit lobbyist influence in order to "restore faith in government." White House representative Ben LaBolt stated that, "The goal is full transparency." Ironically, shouts are now being heard that the government is taking away citizens' rights. 

While this ruling clearly does single out one classification of people, it is from the perspective that it is for the public interest to reassure non-lobbyist citizens that stimulus decisions are not being made for the highest bidder. However, anyone that is not registered as a lobbyist can discuss whatever they wish with officials, still allowing for possible interference. It does seem kind of sad that, in order to prove to others that the government will not be swayed for reasons other than public interest, the government has to ban communication altogether as if the officials are not steadfast enough to stick to moral decision-making. Then again morality and politics haven't seemed to be synonymous for quite a while...

One could fail to see that lobbyist's are being inexplicably silenced. They can say whatever they wish in writing as long as they agree that it will be publicly accessible and lobbyists do have a history of bribery to influence legislation. Lobbyists generally have a negative reputation, as seen by the restrictions already placed on them such as the requirement to report activity within Maryland jurisdiction by the Maryland Senate. The reports concern events and gifts funded by registered lobbyists.  However, oral speech is being strictly limited and monitored and the First Amendment has been repeatedly explained as a risk but one required for a free market of ideas. Prior restraint rings through the air as issues relevant to public interest are being silenced and more so if a lobbyist fears their opinion may touch too close to the line dividing "general Recovery act policy issues" and the issues concerning "particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding."

Further discrimination is addressed by the New York Times Article The Good Lobbyist published the day before lobbyists cornered the ethics chief. The Obama policy allows for occasional waivers. So, if an official does feel like discussing the stimulus plan orally with a lobbyist, this could be unrightfully allowed if Obama agrees with what this specific lobbyist has to say. While William Lynn, a lobbyist, was chosen for deputy secretary of defense, Tom Malinowski is refused the position for the administration's global human rights chief because of his being a registered lobbyist. Rightly stated by this article, it is a good thing that lobbyist relations are being limited, but such an incomplete ban is unconstitutional. The government has given itself the power to silence all but those they agree with. 

The traditional job of lobbyists is to represent others when debating public policy. By silencing this group, those of self-interest have a greater opportunity to influence the decision-making process, an opinion expressed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Additionally, silencing lobbyists then silences all the people that they represent. Clearly this is in violation of the First Amendment rights of more than just the lobbyists. More negative influence on administrative decisions seems inevitable.

The Irony of the "Obama Youth Effect"

We all know our good friend the reasonable person. According to recent studies, the youth of America today is different from the last era. Last fall, William Strauss, a generational expert, reported to MTV that the current generation of teens is more civic-minded. This year, MTV decided to raise its number of viewers by conforming to the new thinking and sending MTV talents across the country to accomplish "100 things to do before you die"-type acts and, along the way, granting the wishes of underprivileged youth (though as this idea is in hopes to raise their number of viewers it is not quite as gallant an action).

If youth are becoming more civic-minded and more reasonable relating to political issues, it can be inferred that their reasonability for their own actions regarding the laws has increased as well. After all, if they have been paying more attention to the news and take a greater interest in politics, they should have a better understanding of right and wrong in respect to America's laws and capable of understanding ways to improve society. 

Cases such as Morse v Frederick and Fraser, students were ruled against because of their inappropriate speech and/or behavior, Frederick displaying a sign that could reasonably be read as sanctioning marijuana usage and Fraser using "offensively lewd and indecent speech." Stated for Frederick, "children assuredly do not shed their constitutional rights...at the schoolhouse gate...[as] the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school." If minors of this generation are more interested in watching shows documenting charity work and community improvement than how rich teenagers entertain themselves, it's clearly a step in the right direction for teens to exhibit less inappropriate behavior and more behavior that is beneficial to other students based on merit of ideas or actions. In essence, acting in a more reasonable manner.

However, what is seen as reasonability of minors by MTV's sources may be seen as the beginning of socialism by others. Such a label would of course strip away any progress made by minors to resemble our reasonable friend.

The recent election has caused numerous people to give credit to Obama for the rising youth involvement in politics and has even been given the name "The Obama Youth Effect."

The MTV article gives credit to the recent election for the growing political education of teens. Ironically, some see Obama as against First Amendment rights. Back in October of 2008, Andrew McCarthy of the National Review sent out a warning that then Senator Obama "and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What's more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quall dissent." Agreeing opinions would be that of the "Conservative Christian," and the creator of this YouTube video, extremist views that Obama's election has led to the demise of true free speech and has actually resulted in a sort of brainwashed, regulated speech. The blogger believes that Obama's goal in affecting youth is to turn them away from God and to act as today's Hitler. Such an issue would of course give cause to discourage youth from allowing Obama's influence to affect their reasoning of political decision making. If minors are assumed to be influenced by Obama, their level of reasoning if below that of the reasonable person as they now not only do not have the knowledge to make beneficial decisions for their classmates or society, but are incapable of making their own decisions period.

Contrary to such reports of Obama's acts of domestic mental terrorism is that of the First Amendment Lawyer Blog. New Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines were decided by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 19th, following the President's presidential memorandum issued on his first day of office. He called for agencies to "usher in a new era of open government." The new guidelines are to direct executive branch departments to presume openness when administering the FOIA. Transparency is to allow for the public to view government activities and support their right to see them. Such a policy encourages the public to become more active in the politic aspect of America and such action could trickle down to American's youth, furthering their reasonableness regarding political decisions. Looking at decisions such as these support the "work in progress" for youth to become politically involved during Obama's presidency, hoping it will continue on after. 

As more youth can be considered knowledgeable about political concepts, perhaps the Supreme Court will believe that they have more of a right to reasonably express themselves politically as well as in other ways. However, the "Obama Effect" can be seen in a very negative light. The eery way in which youth publicly praise Obama makes me believe they are less reasonable and more programmed. Then again, programmed people would of course be less likely to cause disruption due to their freedom of expression as it would be the same expression as the rest of the children and therefore at least not cause disruption in the classroom. Additionally, the First Amendment is in existence to protect the speech others disapprove of. While its been discussed time and time again that speech in schools has much more reason to be regulated than speech outside of the classroom, the First Amendment should protect minors from being silenced if the majority of the school or of a class is expressing one opinion that people not within that class or school disapprove of. After all, if it is the majority belief, it is not causing as much of a disruption as the belief that may exist in majority outside of the school's walls (such as the YouTube video of students chanting for Obama in military uniforms that got their teacher suspended). This is of course assuming that the students were not forced to show support for Obama. The students were not silenced, but as the teacher was supposed to teach McCain's economic plan as well and appeared to have not, he was suspended. Teachers could possibly construe this as a sort of prior restraint. They may restrain their students from jointly expressing one belief in case others feel they are erring in not having diverse beliefs.

In support of student expression, the 5th Circuit of Texas decided on March 16th of this year that the moment of silence in Texas schools is constitutional. As this moment of silence is applicable in various ways, the moment is an expression of freedom for minors to openly practice their religion if they wish. While this item has been an issue in many states for the last couple of years, the decision to protect this could reflect the changing times for respect of minor rights.  While there have been numerous First Amendment case victories since the crucial months leading up to Obama's election, this has been the only case to specifically involve minors. So perhaps court rulings will loosen the ties of minor First Amendment cases. Only time will tell.

"A Coffin, a Flag, a Photograph" and the right to see it

It is clear that, since Obama took office, many changes have been put into effect. One such change was the removal of the ban on news media access of returning war dead, which was put into effect during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. This past Sunday evening, the Pentagon allowed the media to cover the return of Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip Myers. Those in favor of the ban believed censorship of such events would prevent the media from using deaths in a purely political way. In 2003, it was announced that reporters would be embedded within the army to report the war.  Initially, the media portrayed this in a positive light since the Pentagon seemed to agree that the war news should not be told by means of censored articles or censored footage. However, the fine print of the agreement stated that, "If media are inadvertently exposed to sensitive information, they should be briefed after exposure on what information they should avoid covering." The debate over the ban's relation to broadcast of the returning dead mainly dealt with the right of privacy to the families vs. the First Amendment right of the press to report newsworthy information. 

However, as discussed in class, the media makes things newsworthy by reporting it. While "...critics point to the First Amendment and have accused the government of trying to keep the public in the dark about the human toll of war," is true, I do not really see how this differs from the media reporting war deaths in general when looked at in a political aspect. I remember coming home from school each day after 9/11 and seeing lists of names on the television screen and watching as they scrolled across the screen as the reporter explained yet another bombing in Afghanistan had resulted in loss of life. I remember thinking how strange it was that when four soldiers died, there was a report on each one's life and how their families were coping-- but when thirty soldiers died, suddenly the news played into the flash-attention span broadcasts. The higher the number of deaths, the less the media cares about who died. 

By this reasoning, the media really only does what they wish to do with the news that comes there way. In that sense, maybe they don't deserve to report such political deaths as it is not for public interest that they do it, but rather to lead into their next story about how they feel about the war efforts, thus supporting the past ban's reasoning.

Additionally, reporting a death with pictures and background information gets the same message across to the public without grand emotional injury to the families as can be caused by a prime-time showing of their loved one being carried from airplane to hearse. 

However, such thinking is exactly why we have a First Amendment. It does not matter that I disagree with the way in which the reporters bring to light the deaths of citizens and soldiers. What matters is the ability for such news to come to light in any way.

Wars provide for much media coverage but usually result in fewer human rights and more censoring than ever. The movie Vantage Point I think demonstrates this quite well while Transformers nudges the issue in a comedic way. In summary, Vantage Point is a story of the assassination of the President, a plan concocted by numerous people of citizen to FBI qualifications. The beginning depicts a reporter arguing with her boss that she is reporting everyone is hopeful at the scene of a treaty while in reality the majority of people are protesting the President's presence. At the end, a reporter states that the one assassin had been killed. Transformers ends with the lead's mother stating that if there was something going, the government would definitely tell everyone so they could duck and cover. War causes more censorship as the government wants the public to support their decisions and believe that the war is a downhill battle. While this is a whole other issue to debate, such censorship does put Americans in the dark and so no censorship has to be the blanket decision to promote that free and unrestricted sharing of ideas.

For the Harper v Showler case, Robert Showler filed against Harper Magazine after the publication of open-casket photos of Sergeant Kyle Brinlee. Reporters were given consent to be present at the funeral and the funeral was "newsworthy" as the Sergeant was the first Oklahoma National Guardsman to be killed in the line of duty since the Korean War. After reporting the death of soldiers, it can be viewed that the actual filming of the return of the deceased is not needed to make such a report. The families are very distressed and if the deaths can simply be reported on the news, the public does not need to see the actual return of the soldier.

Then again, First Amendment cases are not decided based on the feelings of the plaintiffs. If the average reasonable person would not be upset by having their beloved's casket coming off an airplane be aired on prime-time television, then gosh darn it, it's going to be allowed on prime-time television. Honestly, though, what person can be considered the "average reasonable person" as any moment they are going to see the body of someone they love? The families and friends are very upset and most likely less reasonable than they usually are at such a moment. This shouldn't mean their feelings count for nothing, though. It should actually have the opposite effect: No one is truly rational during such a proceeding and so the "reasonable person" defense cannot be used. But then again a picture of a happy, living soldier with a capture stating his death is not quite as riveting as seeing his lifeless body before crying family and friends. If you're against a war and want people on your side, the later is definitely the way to go. But then I think your getting into using this event in a more commercial sense. No, there is no product being sold, but if you are anti-war and this is your station, you are selling your opinions.

This is slightly random but I just saw it and had to share. The New York Times posted numerous articles about Obama's unannounced visit, etc...But always call him "Mr. Obama," while they always referred to Bush as "President Bush"...I thought that was a bit strange, but it does emphasize my point that the Press can report things however they wish for people to view them. Personally, I think the article's lack of the use of "President" is disrespectful and that is just from one word.