Letters to the Editor
-
To Bad Hippocrates Wasn't a Journalist
The study exerpted below finds that public opinion has a fundamental impact on Supreme Court Decisions. While it focuses on the first amendment, the exact same is true for any of the rights in the Bill of Rights. Public opinion impacts Judicial decisions as it does legislative and executive actions. In light of this fact, media coverage that has the effect of deflating public support (through misrepresentation) for civil liberties is simply toxic to democracy. It is not only sloppy journalism--it is actually harmful to our form of government. It is unfortunate that journalists have nothing similar to the medical Hippcratic Oath.
One other reaction to GG's piece--The figures Greenwald shows for media articles covering superficial topics as opposed to important topics is also true of polling. We could use more frequent polls on issues of this sort, and many fewer on the "horse race", which occur without fail every single day. Polling is expensive, and we are wasting so much by polling on questions that are simply not that important.
Over time public support for free speech helps buttress — or undermine — existing legal protections. Public support for free speech tends to be strongest for speech that clearly promotes an informed citizenry and democratic self-governance. However, the public tends to have less tolerance for offensive speech and speech that it regards as extremist, particularly when it fails to see a connection to democracy.
The public is also much less protective of media rights than individual rights. That makes it less likely that the high court will rule for news organizations in First Amendment cases than it would in an environment of high public respect for the news media.
The study points to a wide range of mechanisms by which public opinion affects judicial decisions, ranging from the appointments process — which shifts the median or “swing” Justice on the Supreme Court — to the fact that judges and Justices live in the same culture as everyone else. These effects may often be indirect, but over time they may matter a great deal.
“We are now engaged in a really vital debate over civil liberties after 9/11, and it becomes ever more important for the public to show its support for our basic freedoms,” said Balkin, “It’s a time of challenge but also a time of opportunity. Courts can’t do everything by themselves, nor should we expect them to. If the public rises to the occasion and supports freedom of speech when it is threatened, the judiciary will be far more likely to protect this core freedom.”
What is needed, the study says, are larger efforts to educate the public about the First Amendment. It proposes a model for educating students and the public on First Amendment issues, focusing on how free speech and a free press advance democracy and serve the public interest. The model education program should also educate the public about the difference between using social norms and social disapproval to regulate speech, and using the power of the state in the form of fines and criminal penalties.
http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases/detail.dot?id=136205