Off-line, I have received some sharp criticism for my comments about “Fire in the State of the Union.” For the record, I don’t really care or speak much about politics. I am not in favor of the guy with the most money winning the election. I am not in favor of other governments deciding what happens in our nation. I hope campaign reform can be achieved. Sadly, it will probably be handled by a guy who abused the system to get elected and hopes to stop the next guy from abusing the system like he did.
Whenever campaign regulations do get fixed, I hope we won’t fix one problem by creating what I believe could be a much bigger problem. In other words, I hope the solution to campaign imbalances will never be fixed at the expense of our freedom of speech.
My concern is that if a government can tell a broadcaster what election advertising can be aired, that same government can also tell a broadcaster what religious views cannot be aired. You see, both issues (even though they seem completely unrelated) are directly connected to our freedom of speech. I am opposed to restrictions on what to think, publish, promote, or simply speak out loud.
A government can easily gain support to solve a particularly distasteful problem (such as influencing elections). They can rally agreement for a plan if the problem is obvious and everyone wants the problem solved. However, whether unintentionally, or by cleverly crafted schemes, if the solution leads to government controlling more than was intended in the original solution, it is a dangerous plan.
For example, if a law is enacted that specifically restricts broadcasters from influencing elections by controlling advertising paid for by “big business,” in essence that would stop “big business” from paying the media to convince audiences to believe the claims of one candidate or inundating audiences with the problems of another candidate. That sounds practical and good. Most of us are tired of ugly campaign trash anyway. But I am concerned that if enacted, such a law could also be used to stop Christians from promoting the claims of Christ or influencing those drawn to religions in conflict with the claims of Christ. No media, no government, and no person should have the power to demand any American believes or disbelieves a religion. But no religion should be restricted from having the freedom to declare its beliefs or presenting its benefits.
Regarding “big business,” what is it anyway? I guess if you are in business, “big business” is bigger than you are. Perhaps if you are not in business, “big business” is any business that gets your money along the way. It is sorting of like taxing the wealthy. As long the tax is for someone wealthier than you are, it doesn’t sound so bad.
In the case of freedom of speech, I am sensitive about it because I worked with the Underground Church behind the Iron Curtain during the darkest days of Communism. I saw what can happen when a government has the power to control what people could say in public. The fire of oppression spread to control of what people said in private. No doubt some never thought that it could gone that far. They probably thought the rhetoric was just smoke. But by the time their freedom was gone, oppression was all that remained.
Please do not misunderstand my comments. I love America and I do not believe our government will enslave us. This is a free nation and as free people we elect our leaders. As a Christian, I am instructed to pray for our leaders and to rejoice in our freedom.
The potential for any loss of freedom is worth discussing. That is what I am doing. I am raising an issue for consideration. I might not fully understand it all. My concern might not seem rational or obvious. Nevertheless, I am concerned that a general solution to a specific problem (campaign imbalances) has the potential to be used to limit a specific freedom I do not wish to yield. If we fail to consider the long-term effect of such a suggested legislative decision, I believe it can have negative consequences on other freedoms.
You may disagree. I welcome your comments.
Shalom,
Randy Weiss
www.crosstalk.org
1 response so far ↓
1 jim kelly // Mar 20, 2010 at 9:45 pm
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. – Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276
You must log in to post a comment.