|
Editorial
writers are quick to react to the slightest threat
to their own First Amendment rights.
Too bad they aren’t as concerned about the
wholesale infringement of the First Amendment rights
of others.
Freedom
of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of
association are critically important in our
constitutional scheme.
These three freedoms are guaranteed by the
First Amendment and are essential to the
preservation of other civil liberties.
Of
the three, freedom of association is arguably the
most important. The right of free expression means
little if individuals are unable to meet, even in
secret, to test ideas that are threatening to those
in power. Most
individuals are reluctant to challenge the
prevailing regime unless they have the support of
others.
Without
the opportunity to test politically threatening
ideas on those we trust, citizens are denied the
practical ability to organize opposition to the
regime. Freedom
of the press is also a powerful safeguard, but it is
not as critical as the right of citizens to organize
against a government they oppose.
The
recent demonstration of widespread citizen
opposition to an illegitimate and oppressive regime
in the
Ukraine
illustrates the importance of this right of people
to organize against their government.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press,
without more, would not have forced the political
change that occurred in that country.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in the
streets of
Kiev
ultimately brought about that dramatic change.
The
First Amendment guarantees more than the right of
people to assemble. It
protects activity that almost always precedes a
large outpouring of public sentiment. It protects
the right of people to meet together to debate, to
scheme and to organize.
Ukrainians
could not have sustained their lengthy street
demonstrations without this kind of preparation.
Careful advance planning and organizing by
cadres of opponents of the corrupt government were
necessary.
Effective
political accountability would be unthinkable
without this ability of people to associate freely.
This freedom necessarily includes the right
to select those who participate and to exclude those
who oppose the objectives and policies of the
organizers.
Some
editorial writers believe that politicians in power
should be able to enact laws forcing political
parties to include in their most important decision-making
process – the nomination of party candidates –
people who do not share the aspirations, values, and
principles of the party.
The chief justification for this editorial
position is that parties might exercise this freedom
unwisely.
These
same editorial writers reject the same argument when
it is applied to the news media.
They insist that freedom of the press carries
the risk that foolish, offensive and dangerous ideas
might be published. That
risk, they contend, is the price of true freedom.
The
Republican Party of Virginia has recently modified
its Plan of Organization (that is, its charter) to
provide in unmistakable language that the party
opposes state laws requiring the inclusion of any
registered voter in a Republican primary.
Unless a party exercises the power to exclude
those who are hostile to its principles (including,
for example, elected Democratic officials), it
cannot control its agenda or its destiny.
Whether
a party’s nominating process will be restricted to
members of the party or open to independents as well
is a choice that must be left to the party itself.
The choice may differ from one primary to
another,
Leaving
to government the decision about who can participate
in a party’s nominating process because a
political party may choose unwisely or even against
its own interests is akin to giving government the
power to decide what to publish because the news
media might abuse the privilege.
--
May 9, 2005
|
