When the Revolutionary War was over and the Founding Fathers met to draw up a plan for the future of the fledgling new nation they concluded that a federal government was necessary, however, that such government’s existence should be contingent upon its being accountable to its citizens. They also concluded that this accountability could only be sustained if the citizens were informed of what the government was doing and were able to intercede. The task of disseminating the vital information to the citizenry fell upon the press. Additionally, they insisted that such press should be a free press that is not operated or controlled by the government.
When the Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution it was apparent by its placement on the list as the “First Amendment” that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were of paramount importance. As the supreme law of the land the Constitution has made it extremely difficult to abridge this right to free expression. With few exceptions those rights have been preserved. Those exceptions have been outlined in recent decisions by the Supreme Court which has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and the press to “provide no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes advocacy of the use of force or law violation where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
A free press is absolutely essential to the well-being of every freedom loving individual. As President Lincoln once stated, “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe.” A democratic society needs to be in control of its own destiny. It cannot achieve that without valid information and the free exchange of ideas.
The Supreme Court has stated that “the profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on governmental officials… That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate and that punishing critics of public officials for any factual errors would chill speech about matters of public interest.” The Court went on to declare, “Public officials and public figures to a certain extent seek out public acclaim and assume the risk of greater public scrutiny.”
There are those who might argue, “I don’t agree with what that editor said and I resent the allegations he is making.” Quite frankly, as a non-journalist, I have uttered the same sentiments myself. But whether I agree with him or not, his publication is what created my awareness of the issue in question and, therefore, enabled me to make an individual determination of the validity of that issue according to my own principles and values.
We in Fillmore are fortunate to have a local newspaper - one that allows both sides of controversial issues to be published. We rely on that newspaper to keep informed on what is occurring in our community; to serve as the “watchdog” of our interests. And occasionally, like all good watchdogs, it might bark at the wrong people. Nevertheless it still serves an extremely vital function and should not be inhibited from alerting us of the next potential danger.