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. -First Amendment to the Constitution
These words written almost two hundred and twenty years ago have simply become obsolete. Don't get me wrong, I love the first amendment, and I wholeheartedly believe in the freedoms it protects. As many have done before me, I could extoll its virtues and note how integral a part it is of the American Dream, because its true; the first amendment is great, and it is an integral part of the American Dream. However, those words were written in a more simple time; for a different America in a different world. That single sentence above is far to simple and vague to have any efficacy in today's world.
This isn't to say that the first amendment is wrong or should be removed, but in that today's world, it is woefully limited and under equipped to deal with the task of protecting Americans from the threats it was designed to counter. After all, we must keep in mind that the point here is protecting American citizens, not preserving an archaic document and the accompanying old-world attitude. The importance of the first amendment lies not in the words themselves, but the principles they represent, the so-called "spirit of the law".
The beginning of the amendment says it all, "Congress shall make no law..." Quite plainly stated, the first amendment puts limits on the government to protect the people. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the government from ignoring or silencing the individual, ensuring that every citizen can have their voice heard and get to say their piece. After all, "...of the people, for the people, by the people." Sadly, this archaic law is both too vague and too limited to effectively protect the individual in today's world of telephones, internet, and the integrated global media network.
The beginning of the amendment says it all, "Congress shall make no law..." Quite plainly stated, the first amendment puts limits on the government to protect the people. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the government from ignoring or silencing the individual, ensuring that every citizen can have their voice heard and get to say their piece. After all, "...of the people, for the people, by the people." Sadly, this archaic law is both too vague and too limited to effectively protect the individual in today's world of telephones, internet, and the integrated global media network.
Limited First Amendment Rights for Elected Officials
The main principle behind the first amendment is the protection of the individual from governmental oppression. Ergo, in becoming a part of the government, politicians are among the things from which Americans are protected by the first amendment. As such, the first amendment, specifically the freedom of speech, should not be fully extended to those elected to office. The first amendment should not cover a politician's ability to lie to their constituents. Too often in recent history (I am reminded of Jon Kyl's infamous not-intended-to-be-a-factual-statement statement) we have seen elected officials sway public opinion on many issues by outright lying to the public, or deliberately misstating the facts through selective omission and half truths. This political strategy is based on first ratcheting up the unjustified fears of the people, fears often created by the politicians themselves. Then, by taking advantage of the fear-induced vulnerability of the voters, the politicians convince the voters of the evils of their opponents plan, rather than actually producing and promoting a viable and logical plan of their own. Finally, the politicians claim to be acting on the will of their constituents when they vote in accordance with the lies they told, just how they were planning on voting all along (regardless of public opinion), which is usually along party lines, in favor of whichever lobby pays them the most, and in their own political best interests.
In the business world, this behavior would be illegal. Perpetrators would be indicted for securities fraud, the only differences being that instead of shareholders, the victim is the American people, and instead of profit, the end goal is campaign contributions from special interests and re-election. Today's political system has evolved far beyond its original incarnation, for which the first amendment was sufficient. However, unlike business law, the first amendment has not changed in centuries and thus is too out of date and unequipped to adequately protect the rights it was originally designed to protect.
Too often the needs and interests of the individual are ignored in favor of political maneuvering and the power of the almighty dollar. Sadly, the people who are most victimized are those who do not even know they're being duped because of the barrage of lies they've been fed. It is a tragedy that Americans today feel that their representatives are acting in their best interests, when in reality it is all a devious ploy to keep the politicians in office and their bank accounts full, while keeping Americans in the dark.
So here is my first addendum to the first amendment, a sub clause, if you will.
The right to freedom of speech does not cover the speech of any appointed or elected government official if said speech is intended to mislead or misinform the people of America. Any elected or appointed government official found to have knowingly and willingly attempted to deceive the general population through the telling of lies, half truths, or any other speech made with the deliberate intention of hiding or obscuring the truth and facts of any issue, are required to immediately recant their false statements and admit the truths behind their deceptions. Violators are subject to censure for the first offense, loss of seniority and committee memberships for second offense, and for third offenses, the perpetuator will be subject to immediate removal from office and loss of all pension and benefits associated with their position, as well as being barred from any future public service.
Americans have a right to be well informed. It isn't explicitly stated, but I believe this right is intrinsically linked to our freedom of speech. After all, without being well informed our freedom of speech is meaningless; does what we say even matter if our opinions are not based on the truth of the matter at hand? The responsibility of a politician is to bridge the government and the people; to inform the public as to what is in their best interests, and then voice the opinion of the public, not to fool the public into wanting what is best for the politician. In our system of representative democracy, the ability of a public official to freely lie to the citizenry undermines the very nature and efficacy of our democracy. When the citizenry is making its decisions based on skewed facts given to us by those in power, our government becomes merely a thin veneer of democracy pasted over an oligarchy of the rich and powerful.
