The philosophical basis for freedom of the press, especially in a (more or less) democratic state like our own, is that people are the ultimate decision makers, decisions are likely to be better if founded on truth than falsity, and truth is most likely to be available and widely believed with an unfettered press.Basically, I don't believe an individualized right to free speech or free press are goods unto themselves. The query has to go further - why are they important? Why did the Framers think they were important? The answer is obvious - both free press and free speech are necessary to a working system of self-government. The press for truth, and speech so that all the best ideas are heard and debated. That's why the Court's ruling in Citizens United (and the near-equivalent view for the press giving publishers, including cable providers to some extent, the right to say anything they want) was so wrong. Free speech is an illusory right when someone follows you around with a 150dB megaphone. You can't simultaneously say that free speech and press are important and then give anyone the right to simply drown or crowd others out (a right that usually only materializes with the huge resources of a corporation). Because it destroys the forum for speech itself, the crowding/drowning out should be prohibited by the First Amendment, not protected by it.
It's interesting that a few paragraphs later, Prof. Perry says this:
Perhaps it's important to distinguish freedom of the press from freedom of speech. Glenn Beck ought to have the right to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense. But would it be so far-feteched to argue that people ought to have some basic qualifications before being given the power of a national television show? Lawyers are policed by their own profession; they have to have a degree and pass the bar to practice. . . . [W]e have regulations about dentists and doctors, we have accrediting of universities that affect eligibility for government support, we have regulations about the medicines and drugs that one can peddle. Doctors have to take an oath and have the requisite degrees. Is it crazy to suppose that at least some journalists, the ones with access to the public airwaves, the ones that work for the large and influential newspapers and cable broadcasting operations, have some minimal accreditation? Some education? Some oath to tell the truth? The government rates steaks. Why can’t they rate journalists? I’d give John Stewart and Rachel Maddow and the sainted Eward [sic] R. Murrow prime ratings. Glenn Beck the equivalent of fit for dogs. I don’t know where I would Keith Oblermann. We need a category like nourishing but pompous, I guess. (emphasis added)That's exactly what I happen to be writing my law school Note (basically a paper published by a law student rather than a professor or practitioner) on. I'm proposing that the government do just that - well that they rate programs, actually. I'll have more detail about that when it comes out. Incidentally, this is also the first mention of the idea I've seen anywhere, since, well, my own post at my old blog a little over two years ago.
Basically, he's right. Journalism is almost now constitutionally required to be self-policing in the way that lawyers and doctors are-only lawyers and doctors have outside influences like a potential loss of license and malpractice suits. News people can have no such thing, so they have no incentive to self-police. And when their ethics code breaks down, a rating system could encourage that through financial incentives, by alerting news consumers to the crap they're getting. I liken it to nutritional information on food packaging, only we're talking eating your intellectual vegetables over brain candy.
Anyway, read Prof. Perry's whole post - I could have just copied and pasted the whole thing into this post, really, but I didn't want to steal it.
