What others say: Measures could crimp the free press

The voters of Haines recently amended that small Southeast Alaska town’s municipal charter to declare that the constitutional rights outlined in the document are guaranteed only to individual humans and not to artificial entities, such as corporations.

 

The idea is to express dissatisfaction with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, which allowed corporations, unions and other groups to spend money to elect specific candidates. That dissatisfaction is understandable, but critics need to think a little more deeply before pushing to nullify the free speech rights of all corporations.

That thinking, of course, focuses on the deep pockets of big corporations and their ability to influence elections after the court decision. The corporate spending is viewed as so foul and corrosive that it must be stopped. So, if our courts insist the Constitution protects this spending as a form of free speech, opponents assert, then the only solution is to void free speech guarantees for the corporations.

That logic forgets that there are many types of corporations. Voiding all their free speech rights would be far too drastic a step.

This strikes particularly close to home for media corporations. Should a newspaper’s right to comment on political matters, free of government oversight, be nullified simply because it is owned by a corporation? What about the rights of television networks, wire services, blogs, social network sites and other forms of media that often are owned by corporations? Should the government eliminate their fundamental right as well?

Justice John Roberts saw the problem with nullifying corporate speech rights when writing in the Citizens United decision: “(The) theory, if accepted, would empower the government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are,” he wrote.

Opponents of the Citizens United decision might not intend to take away the free speech rights of media corporations, but the nullification of those rights for all corporations would have that effect. It’s not clear to us what the solution is, but nullifying free speech rights is not it.

— Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,

Oct. 8

More

Tue, 09/26/2017 - 09:49

Op-ed: ‘Sovereignty’ is not a dirty word

To listen to the commentary, Donald Trump used an inappropriate term at the U.N. — not just “Rocket Man,” but “sovereignty.”... Read more

Tue, 09/26/2017 - 09:48

Op-ed: Sick nicknames

Quick! What does Kim Jong Un have in common with Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, most journalists and so many Americans who have somehow... Read more

Tue, 09/26/2017 - 09:48

Editorial: Nothing new in head tax proposal

If at first you don’t succeed, try again. But if, after an extended regular session and multiple special sessions, the Legislature still won’t pass an... Read more

Tue, 09/26/2017 - 09:47

Op-ed: The UN: Once ‘useless,’ now useful

While campaigning for the presidency, Donald Trump more than once referred to the United Nations as a “useless” organization and “not a friend of democracy.”... Read more