Kucinich, Paul, and Free Speech

By icitizen 01/17/08 7 comments

Kucinich, Paul, and Free Speech

In some minds, the exclusion of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul from televised presidential candidates’ debates raises Freedom of Speech questions.

As the Nevada caucuses approached, NBC and Fox didn’t see their White House prospects as strong enough to justify their sharing air time with the front-runners.

NBC originally invited Kucinich but changed its mind. Paul won more votes than Fred Thompson in New Hampshire, but Thompson took the debate podium. Most Nevada caucus goers may not have intended to stand for Kucinich or Paul, but some of them might have liked to hear what they had to say. It might have made for a better show, too: Kucinich and Paul’s rhetoric can be entertaining.

But are there First Amendment implications? Not according to the courts. In pertinent part, the amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” Since 1931, that prohibition has applied as well to the states and their subdivisions, but it has never been held to translate into an individual’s right to command an inch of newsprint nor a second of air time.

Since broadcasting’s early days, the federal government has had the right to regulate use of the scarce airwaves, and Congress gave the Federal Communications Commission authority over content. In an age of deregulation and cablecasting, however, even the equal-time rule has been abandoned.

Below is a clip from an interview with Craig Aaron of freepress.org who says perhaps we should be looking at the First Amendment in a more holistic manner. The topic was the way in which new media and the Internet affect freedom of speech. He spoke months before the Nevada contest, but his comments were prescient.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Filed Under: free speech

7 comments so far. Add a Comment

37 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

I am absolutely disgusted with the mainstream media at their attempts to manipulate the elections! It is NOT for them to make our decisions on who should lead this country. There has been an outcry but it’s online. Anytime a group goes to protest somewhere, the media will conveniently avoid them and say nothing about it on air. Fox went as far as editing out the infamous Ron Paul “electibility” question/answer when they re-aired it………..censorship. They leave out Paul’s and Kucinich’s names hoping the public will “forget” about them. It’s utterly dispicable. Sadly, I feel the two candidates with the most honesty and integrity are being swept under the rug by ruthless corporate owned networks. All they care about is their own interests. Paul and Kucinich could be the best candidates to help us through a forthcoming difficult time for this country. We must always ensure that our internet stays unregulated or we’ll forever lose what free voices and information we have.

reply

37 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

I started keeping a close eye on these events for about 5 weeks and there IS an outcry but it’s online. The mainstream media is making massive attempts to silence these two candidates; the two with the most integrity in my opinion. Fox went as far as to re-air the South Carolina debate with the infamous Ron Paul “electibility” question/answer edited out……..censored. Anywhere you look online, Ron Paul’s name is “conveniently” left out. The masses are VERY angry at what is going on but we’re beginning to feel our hands are tied. What do you do? When there are protesters vying for media attention on this, the media steers away from them and says nothing about it. I feel the media are very afraid of these two candidates. But what amazes me is that Kucinich or Paul could be the only ones to help this country through some EXTREMELY difficult times ahead. Mainstream media is working overtime to make sure they don’t get elected and I am disgusted with their attempts at manipulating the elections. It’s not their decision to make for us. We need to ensure our internet always stays unregulated or we will never have another source to find information that isn’t controlled by BIG corporations.

reply

36 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

What nonsense.

No one would have heard of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in the first place except for the dreaded “media.”

These two fringe candidates were marginalized not by journalists but by voters who, at the polls and in the polls, identified them for the sideshows they are.

Would you have the networks and the newspapers throw open their air and their pages to every wacko who would like to commandeer an audience to spout his or her nostrums and snake oils?

If there is this vast media conspiracy against folks reporters and editors don’t like, how do you account for all the play given to folks like Huckabee and Romney?

I’ve spent forty years making a full-time living as a national news service, metropolitan daily, count weekly, and national magazine journalist. So far, I’ve not been asked to join, or heard of anyone else who has been asked to join, the imaginary conspiracy to censor the fringe (left or right) never mind work overtime to do it.

reply

35 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

To say that no one would have heard of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich without the mainstream media is clearly false and implies we are still relying on a 1950’s media model. The maturing on the internet impact on modern american politics makes that perfectly clear. Paul has raised most of his funds through small (less than $200.00) donations. The media does ignore canidates they don’t consider mainstream. The internet gives Paul a real voice and ultimately a real impact. It will save our democracy!

reply

35 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

What you seem to be saying, then, is that Mssrs. Paul and Kucinich are perfectly capable of getting their candidacies before the public without the newspapers, or the television and radio stations.

So what’s the beef?

At all events, my point was that there is no First Amendment right of access to any news outlet, nor any “media conspiracy” against anything.

reply

35 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

Im sorry but your comment is quite simply incongruent with reality. Although I accept that Kucinich may be a fringe candidate, Paul has raised more money than any other republican candidate and has consistently polled higher than Giuliani and Thompson, beating them both in in both polls and at the polls. Although they have both now dropped out of the race, until they did, they were not dismissed in the same way that Paul was. He does indeed have some radical views and I certainly would not vote for him. But calling him a sideshow and a wacko only because you disagree with them is quite simply juvenile and unworthy of serious discourse.

reply

35 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

Well, I didn’t call him a wacko. I asked whether the air waves and newspapers should be open to every wacko who wants to push a cause. How is it that you made the Paul-wacko link?

At all events, the main point of the discussion—whether everyone as a First Amendment right to participate in a televised debate if her or she likes—has been sort of lost here.

By the way, Mr. Paul appeared in last night’s Republican cattle call. I’m not sure, though, that one can say he “participated.”