I wanted to revisit my First Amendment post from yesterday with another observation...
The Supreme Courts erroneous decision does more than covert the Constitutional prohibition Congress shall make no law into the opposite enabling LAWS DEFINING time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions.
The decision redefines what speech is... in ways that at first appear not well defined but perhaps reasonable. It is proper to think that might naturally and should occur in part... as a process of defining limits that occur when one right conflicts with another. Free speech does appear it reaches a natural limit at the point where fists encounter noses...
However, the redefinition does not properly follow that natural shape in the terrain of the logic of rights...
In the founders day... the role of public speech was participatory... words were accepted as meaningful, and speaking in the public square was accepted as a part of participation in the process. Those gathered in the pubic square... were understood as capable of THEMSELVES responding to that speech by directly addressing the changes needed... the value of the exercise shown in the influence speech enables... when freeholders addressed it by voting... or when the approval of the crowd was reflected in representatives choices in policy. Free speech was meaningful... and was EXPECTED to have an impact.
The context was one in which there was an expectation that Democracy existed and was being practiced in a way that ensured free speech enabled a more direct form of participation...
Of course, today, things have changed...
Today, the intent in the limits on speech being imposed are intended to ensure the opposite... so that it is not just speech that is at issue, but the right to participate in process. The right to free speech and petition... assume that government will listen to and find ways to ADDRESS grievances... and not merely tolerate them ?
And, that got me to thinking... in terms of the CONTENT issue the Supreme Court addressed...
So, considering the CONTENT of speech... as you would in any basic consideration of journalism ?
The news value of any story... is a function of providing adequate coverage of the core elements of CONTENT that make it relevant? Those are quite generally accepted as Who, What, Where, When, Why and How ? If you don't have that basic list filled out... you have an wholly incomplete contingent of items filling the required list of elements in CONTENT... and that means you aren't being well informed...
But, what time, place, manner restrictions accomplish... is to require removing... Where, When, and How from the list of relevant considerations ? And, once you have removed those the fact of the imposition preventing the information from attaining relevance ... also makes the Who, What and Why irrelevant ?
The Supreme Courts logic... appears it should not ever have fooled a single first year journalism student ? |
