[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4272-4273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               AN INDECENT ATTACK ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 10, 2004

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will soon debate the ``Broadcast Indecency 
Act of 2004'' on the House floor. This atrocious piece of legislation 
should be defeated. It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. 
citizens, but it can do irreparable harm to our cherished right to 
freedom of speech.
  This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually 
provocative language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious 
police of Saudi Arabia, who control the ``Commission for the Promotion 
of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.'' Though both may be motivated by the 
good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to 
do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success.
  Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the 
principles of a free society. The Founders recognized this, and thus 
explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge 
freedom of speech or of the press.
  But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this 
protection of free speech.
  This process started years ago when an arbitrary distinction was made 
by the political left between commercial and non-commercial speech, 
thus permitting government to regulate and censor commercial speech. 
Since only a few participated in commercial speech, few cared--and 
besides, the government was there to protect us from unethical 
advertisements. Supports of this policy failed to understand that anti-
fraud laws and state laws could adequately deal with this common 
problem found in all societies.
  Disheartening as it may be, the political left, which was supposed to 
care more about the first amendment than the right, has ventured in 
recent years to curtail so-called ``hate speech'' by championing 
political correctness. In the last few decades we've seen the 
political-correctness crowd, in the name of improving personal behavior 
and language, cause individuals to lose their jobs, cause careers to be 
ruined, cause athletes to be trashed, and cause public speeches on 
liberal campuses to be disrupted and even banned. These tragedies have 
been caused by the so-called champions of free speech. Over the years, 
tolerance for the views of those with whom campus liberals disagree has 
nearly evaporated. The systematic and steady erosion of freedom of 
speech continues.
  Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push 
through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly 
curtails the rights of all Americans to speak out against particular 
candidates at the time of elections.
  Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme 
Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech 
during political campaigns. Instead of admitting that money and 
corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of 
expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds 
of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the 
cause of special interest control of our legislative process.
  And now comes the right's attack on the first amendment, with its 
effort to stamp out ``indecent'' language on the airways. And it will 
be assumed that if one is not with them in this effort, then one must 
support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our 
televisions and radios. For social rather than constitutional reasons, 
some on the left express opposition to this proposal.
  But this current proposal is dangerous. Since most Americans--I 
hope--are still for freedom of expression of political ideas and 
religious beliefs, no one claims that anyone who endorses freedom of 
speech therefore endorses the nutty philosophy and religious views that 
are expressed. We should all know that the first amendment was not 
written to protect non-controversial mainstream speech, but rather the 
ideas and beliefs of what the majority see as controversial or fringe.
  The temptation has always been great to legislatively restrict 
rudeness, prejudice, and minority views, and it's easiest to start by 
attacking the clearly obnoxious expressions that most deem offensive. 
The real harm comes later. But ``later'' is now approaching.
  The failure to understand that radio, TV, and movies more often than 
not reflect the peoples' attitudes prompts this effort. It was never 
law that prohibited moral degradation in earlier times. It was the 
moral standards of the people who rejected the smut that is now routine 
entertainment. Merely writing laws and threatening huge fines will not 
improve the moral standards of the people. Laws like the proposed 
``Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004'' merely address the symptom of a 
decaying society, while posing a greater threat to freedom of 
expression. Laws may attempt to silence the bigoted and the profane, 
but the hearts and minds of those individuals will not be changed. 
Societal standards will not be improved. Government has no control over 
these standards, and can only undermine liberty in its efforts to make 
individuals more moral or the economy fairer.
  Proponents of using government authority to censor certain 
undesirable images and comments on the airwaves resort to the claim 
that the airways belong to all the people, and therefore it's the 
government's responsibility to protect them. The mistake of never 
having privatized the radio and TV airwaves does not justify ignoring 
the first amendment mandate that ``Congress shall make no law abridging 
freedom of speech.'' When everyone owns something, in reality nobody 
owns it. Control then occurs merely by the whims of the politicians in 
power. From the very start, licensing of radio and TV frequencies 
invited government censorship that is no less threatening than that 
found in totalitarian societies.
  We should not ignore the smut and trash that has invaded our society, 
but laws like this will not achieve the goals that many seek. If a 
moral society could be created by law, we would have had one a long 
time ago. The religious fundamentalists in control of other countries 
would have led the way. Instead, authoritarian violence reigns in those 
countries.
  If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve 
the quality of the airways, a heavy price will be paid. The solution to 
decaying moral standards has to be voluntary, through setting examples 
in our families, churches, and communities--never by government 
coercion. It just doesn't work.
  But the argument is always that the people are in great danger if 
government does not act by: (a) Restricting free expression in 
advertising; (b) claiming insensitive language hurts people, and 
political correctness guidelines are needed to protect the weak; (c) 
arguing that campaign finance reform is needed to hold down government 
corruption by the special interests; (d) banning indecency on the 
airways that some believe encourages immoral behavior.
  If we accept the principle that these dangers must be prevented 
through coercive government restrictions on expression, it must 
logically follow that all dangers must be stamped out, especially those 
that are even more dangerous than those already dealt with. This 
principle is adhered to in all totalitarian societies. That means total 
control of freedom of expression of all political and religious views. 
This certainly was the case with the Soviets, the Nazis, the 
Cambodians, and the Chinese communists. And yet these governments 
literally caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people 
throughout the 20th Century. This is the real danger, and if we're in 
the business of protecting the people from all danger, this will be the 
logical next step.
  It could easily be argued that this must be done, since political 
ideas and fanatical religious beliefs are by far the most dangerous 
ideas known to man. Sadly, we're moving in that direction, and no 
matter how well intended the promoters of these limits on the first 
amendment are, both on the left and the right, they nevertheless 
endorse the principle of suppressing any expressions of dissent if one 
chooses to criticize the government.
  When the direct attack on political and religious views comes, 
initially it will be on targets that most will ignore, since they will 
be seen

[[Page 4273]]

as outside the mainstream and therefore unworthy of defending--like the 
Branch Davidians or Lyndon LaRouche.
  Rush Limbaugh has it right (at least on this one), and correctly 
fears the speech police. He states: ``I'm in the free speech 
business,'' as he defends Howard Stern and criticizes any government 
effort to curtail speech on the airways, while recognizing the media 
companies' authority and responsibility to self regulate.
  Congress has been a poor steward of the first amendment. This newest 
attack should alert us all to the dangers of government regulating 
freedom of speech--of any kind.

                          ____________________