I’ve
come to the floor over the last few weeks to talk about the First Amendment,
one of America’s most cherished pillars of freedom. Unfortunately, in recent
years, we’ve seen a corrosive culture undermining sacred civic freedoms
Americans risk taking for granted. Silencing the free exchange of ideas has
infiltrated college campuses and the American workplace. It’s even affected
journalism, in traditional media and across social media platforms.
We
all know that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. And
occasionally, we in the United States fall into a discussion about the
technical boundaries of the First Amendment when we talk about the meaning and
merits of free speech.
The
health of our democracy depends on free speech to foster an informed public.
The rigorous exchange of ideas informs debate on issues affecting our lives,
and enables individuals to challenge power and orthodoxy.
In
theory, the institutions of the Fourth Estate should be the staunchest
defenders of the First Amendment.
So
it’s been baffling to watch over the last year as some editors and executives
at storied institutions crumple under pressures to police speech, to conform to
orthodoxy and to stifle the exchange of ideas instead of promoting the contest
of them.
It’s
now old news, but last summer a longtime opinion editor at The New York
Times was pushed out for having the audacity to publish an opinion piece
written by Sen. Tom Cotton.
Apparently
a group of readers and employees found his ideas so upsetting as to warrant the
removal of the editor who published them. The paper also issued a
several-hundred word editor’s note to express regret for publishing the piece
in the first place.
If
those readers and employees at the Times disagreed so strongly, the public
could have learned something by publishing a counter-argument, instead of
reading about their regret. I myself have publicly disagreed with Senator
Cotton about a policy idea or two, and I made my points here on the Senate
floor.
Instead,
we had executives at a paper of record scapegoat a colleague for failing to
conform to some yet unexplained orthodoxy, versus the rational decision to
engage in public debate on their own pages.
In
January, Politico invited a slate of individuals to guest edit their
widely-read newsletter, Playbook. Among those guest editors was Ben Shapiro, a
conservative commentator.
His
name alone was enough to spark a backlash among staffers and even outside
commentators. To their credit, the editors at Politico did not apologize.
But
according to the Washington Post media writer, some Politico
employees who privately supported the choice to publish Shapiro were “afraid”
to speak up on staff calls, fearing backlash among colleagues.
These
episodes represent an unhealthy environment—where some think it’s prudent to give
voice to those with whom they agree or whose views are deemed acceptable.
While
the editors did the right thing at one outlet, they didn’t at the other. Either
way, it probably means they’ll be more selective about what is “acceptable” in
the future, which certainly doesn’t serve those principles I mentioned earlier.
These
may be fairly obscure controversies, but they’re indicative of a wider problem.
Expectations of “acceptability” and a preference for unchallenged ideas chip
away at our most sacred civic freedoms in America.
No
one learns more from less debate.
Neglecting
to defend free speech and champion the free exchange of ideas creates a pathway
for censorship.
The
institutions of the news media ought to defend the fundamental principles
behind free speech and free press at the top of their lungs. The First
Amendment is the oxygen of their own existence.
Last
fall, the New York Post had a story censored on Twitter a short time
before the election.
Regardless
of what one thinks about the content of that story, the methods of reporting,
or even the tone of the writing, the suppression of information like that
should alarm both news writers and news consumers.
Many
outlets went to work fact checking or reporting on the topic in their own way.
That’s all well and good. It’s their job.
But
the public conversation about the censorship devolved into a question of
whether Twitter had the legal ability to do what it did instead of a discussion
of whether it was right to do it.
It
wasn’t right. Even Twitter’s CEO sees that now.
However,
there were no fiery defenses of free speech and free press from mainstream
outlets. Not even ones with caveats about the reporting.
This
was the perfect opportunity for journalistic institutions to weigh in. They
have a dog in the fight. It should be the bread and butter issue for every
editorial board across the country.
The lack of this kind of pro-free-press, pro-free-speech advocacy also contributes
to the unhealthy environment that shuns debate and silences dissent.
So
what will be the consequences of a media environment where conformity and
comfort take precedence over the free exchange of ideas?
The
first, and most obvious, is a less rigorous and less informed public discourse.
Opinions and preferences, especially on matters of public interest, are always
improved after being challenged.
If
you disagree with the New York Times Editorial Board or a pundit on Fox
News, that’s fine. It’d be better if the public heard all about it. Broader
discussions mean broader understanding.
Without
a broad, vigorous public debate, we lose empathy that results from engaging
with someone else’s ideas. In these divisive times in society, empathy is in
low supply.
The
last thing we lose in a media environment ruled by compliance and conformity is
the grand American tradition of dissent. Free speech and the free press have a
centuries-long history in America. From Thomas Paine’s pamphlets to the tweets
spreading across the land today, the revolutionary contest of ideas might take
a different shape, but remains critical to our civic culture and continued
growth as a nation.
I
hope more institutions in the Fourth Estate will take a more aggressive
approach advocating free speech. Now, I wasn’t around when Thomas Paine
published “Common Sense,” but history and my own experience teaches two
important lessons: the free exchange of ideas strengthens representative
government and will help preserve our democratic republic for generations to
come.