Thanks for the First Amendment

Let us give thanks for the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment is the foundation of the planet’s longest-lasting constitutional democracy. Within specific limits drawn over centuries, we can argue that the president is the spawn of Satan, worship toads, or publicly declare our support or condemnation of having sex with children.

The First Amendment protects the expression of ideas that might not sit all that well with the powers to be, whether governmental or as reflected in society. This once allowed a group of Nazis to march through Skokie, Ill, a largely Jewish community. It also allows anyone to advocate the violent overthrow of the government.

This virtually unbridled freedom is unique in the world. That it enables promulgation of ideas and words and pictures that almost anyone would find repugnant is a small price to pay for protection against the greatest tool of political repression: censorship of ideas. As has been made clear by centuries of experience, democracy cannot exist when people are denied the right to exchange ideas and openly argue their worth.

These principles are held so fundamental they are inculcated almost as soon a child can read and write. But they are ignored or even scoffed at by many sophisticated Western nations, our nation’s political and cultural allies.

This was clearly illustrated earlier this week when the British government warned news organizations they would be breaking the law if they publish details of a leaked document said to disclose President Bush wanted to bomb Arabic television station Al Jazeera. First published in the Daily Mirror newspaper, the document went on to say that Bush withdrew his idea only at the insistence of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

A former parliamentary aide and a civil servant were charged with a violation of Britain’s Official Secrets Acts, specifically a ``damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations.'' Thus, David Keogh and Leo O’Connor could go to prison for distributing a document that would do no more harm than cause embarrassment for the American president.

The Official Secrets Acts were first passed in 1911 so they are not a reaction to modern terrorism in an Internet age. They also allow the government to ban the news media from publishing stories the government deems not in its interests -- something called prior restraint, which cannot occur in the U.S. Great Britain has no written constitution, let alone a codified bill of rights. And one of its national legislative chambers is called the House of Lords, none of whose members are elected by the people they govern and have broad veto powers.

In the U.S., governments of both major political parties have sought to limit public scrutiny of their workings or their documents. But the First Amendment also allows citizens to seek redress in the courts and refer to that amendment as the reason they seek openness from those who govern them. Time and again the courts have ruled that the Constitution sets transparency as the default judgment in such cases.

Even when a political administration invokes the principle of “executive privilege” to keep private records of conversations such as those at issue in the UK case, it must justify its decision to a judge. And there is no law preventing an administration from releasing such documents.

At a time of year when we are supposed to reflect and give thanks for what enriches us, it is appropriate to be grateful for the fundamental freedoms given to us by the drafters of the First Amendment and to the elected officials who endorsed it. Without it the democracy we enjoy would not exist.