Free speech: Do Americans really believe in it?
By Charles M. Madigan Perspective editor
Undoubtedly, the Founding Fathers had no idea that a Howard Stern would come along, making his fortune in a strange, electrically powered world that, of all things, sends ideas through the air via invisible waves to entertain and inform "listeners" wherever they may go.
Neither could they have anticipated that he would be, to be frank, a potty mouth.
His humor is built on observations about a collection of bodily functions ranging from sexual intercourse in its many variations to all things excreta. He delights in describing women in the process of removing their clothing in his studio.
For some, it is scandalous, upsetting noise, a torrid and gross cacophony polluting the airwaves. Either that, or it is quality entertainment, laugh-a-minute radio full of provocative characters, witty observations and an unprecedented measure of hilarity.
The beauty or the beast of it, then, depends on who is hearing it.
At this time in the history of a nation built, in part, on the assumption that free speech and criticizing government were premier rights, Stern and his compatriots in shock radio stand squarely at the center of a great debate over some simple questions.
Congress is considering proposals that could lead to millions of dollars a day in Federal Communications Commission fines for radio outlets that violate standards on broadcasting sexually explicit content.
And the Supreme Court last week blocked, once again, a federal law that would set up penalties for Internet transmission of pornography.
Both of these actions touch on questions close to a key assumption in the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers through the Constitution, that it should be very difficult to clamp down on free speech.
To be sure, they could not have anticipated the broadcasting and Internet content of the 21st Century.
But then again, they knew that.
It was why they made restriction of any kind so difficult.
Should you really be able to say whatever you want?
Should the government be able to limit what you can read, hear and watch?
The Chicago Tribune set out to measure some attitudes about those questions across America.
The results of the Tribune poll of 1,000 adults, taken from June 23 to 27 and presented in this Perspective, are remarkable not for the support they display for 1st Amendment rights, which was anticipated, but for the size of the group that would choose to muzzle all kinds of expression, from Stern's vulgarities to news reports on the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq to criticism of a wartime government.
>From the Internet to the radio networks to cable television and
newspapers, substantial minorities would opt for an array of controls
aimed at whittling away free expression, criticism and, yes, even
political commentary.
It does not mean, of course, that freedom of speech is in direct jeopardy.
What it means is that those who would aggressively move to limit expression, however innocent or offensive, can depend on the support of a substantial audience.
Freedom of speech, then, is a right that could be diminished by ever-so-thin slices, a move that would apparently win the support of a lot of Americans as long as Howard Stern and his shock jock buddies were the characters being silenced.
The Tribune poll shows that majorities actually support limitations in some areas. Generally, they involve sexual expression on radio or violence and sex on cable TV or on the Internet.
The poll suggests that 76 percent of adults across the nation have access to the Internet, where content and access range from simple e-mail and scholarly documents and advertising to raw pornography.
It is the commercial hunting ground of saint and scoundrel alike, as comfortable for con experts offering Nigerian fortunes in exchange for a bank account number as it is for the well-intentioned who only want us all to be happier, thinner, bigger, prettier or whatever else might be packaged and sold.
There are signs in the Tribune poll that people are beginning to tire of the purple nature of some of the Internet's content.
Just over half of the respondents in the Tribune poll said the government should impose restrictions on it. Only 38 percent said there should be no restriction. Republicans and people in the Midwest were the strongest backers of restrictions on content, but even a slight majority of Democrats said there should be controls.
Cable television, now something of a national theater of whatever anyone wants to broadcast that has some commercial value, is another target for government regulation, with 55 percent saying the government should restrict sex and violence programming on cable TV.
The strongest support for restriction, however, comes in that very area that is the target of so much attention now, the shock jocks and their dependence on sexual references. A full 64 percent of those questioned said "radio personalities who use implicit or explicit sexual expressions" should simply not be allowed on the air. Only one in three people said they should.
Almost 6 in 10 support heavy FCC fines of radio stations that broadcast that kind of content. Just 33 percent disapproved.
Shifting into politics, the poll also discovered that the nation is split on whether there should have been restrictions on coverage of the Iraqi prisoner scandal. That means one in two people think there should have been some kind of restraint on coverage.
Almost everyone believes people should be allowed to protest the war. About 6 in 10 think it should be OK to allow people to call for the overthrow of the U.S. government.
But almost 4 in 10 say that should not be allowed.
Twenty percent say negative reporting on the war should not be allowed. Twenty percent say critical editorials against a war should not be allowed. About the same number feel that the 1st Amendment itself goes too far. A little over 10 percent say the Patriot Act, which expanded government search and surveillance powers, didn't go far enough.
Put those numbers together and think about a nation as a roomful of, say, 10 people.
The poll indicates that at least two of those people, and in some cases as many as five or six of them, would embrace government controls of some kind on free speech, particularly when it has sexual content or is heard as unpatriotic.
- - -
A TRIBUNE POLL ON THE 1ST AMENDMENT
Should radio personalities who use implicit or explicit sexual expressions be allowed on the air?
64% NO
Should groups opposed to the war be allowed to demonstrate and protest against the war?
84% YES
Should the government impose restrictions on information and content that appears on the Internet?
52% YES
38% NO
7% DON'T KNOW
3% UNFAMILIAR WITH INTERNET
Should the government restrict violence and sexual content that appears on cable TV?
55% YES
40% NO
5% DON'T KNOW
1% UNFAMILIAR WITH CABLE TV
Should radio personalities who use implicit or explicit sexual expressions be allowed on the air?
64% NO
30% YES
5% DON'T KNOW
Do you approve of heavy FCC fines of radio stations due to broadcasts they considered indecent?
58% YES
33% NO
9% DON'T KNOW
----------
How the survey was conducted
Market Shares Corp. of Mt. Prospect conducted the Tribune's 1st Amendment poll June 23-27. The results are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 adults age 18 and older who live in the contiguous United States. In samples of this size, the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune