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

Op-ed: Reince for president

It’s been a rough week for the White House, so reportedly — yet again — Reince Priebus might get fired.

Read more

What others say: Popularity takes a toll on wilderness areas

Oregonians are rightfully proud of the stunning scenic beauty of their state and are accustomed to striking out to experience it whenever they wish, backpacking... Read more

Op-ed: Witch hunt witchcraft

The Democrats need to be careful. Already they’re overreacting to the disclosures that Don Trump Jr. and other Trumpsters met with a Kremlin insider seeking... Read more

Op-ed: The state is not God

Anyone looking for another reason not to leave life-and-death issues to the state need look no further than the conflict between the British government and... Read more