• About Us
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
Sunday, April 11, 2021
The Iowa Torch
  • Home
  • State Government
  • Federal Government
  • Local Government
  • Politics
  • Education
  • Opinion
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • State Government
  • Federal Government
  • Local Government
  • Politics
  • Education
  • Opinion
The Iowa Torch
The Iowa Torch
No Result
View All Result
Home Opinion

Grassley: The Free Press Should Do More to Defend Free Speech

Chuck Grassley: In theory, the institutions of the Fourth Estate should be the staunchest defenders of the First Amendment, but they currently are not.

Chuck GrassleybyChuck Grassley
March 18, 2021
in Opinion
Reading Time:4 mins read
ADVERTISEMENT

Editor’s note: The following is a transcript of a speech that U.S. Senator Grassley, R-Iowa, gave on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Thursday. You can watch the speech above.

RELATED POSTS

Holt: Vaccine Passports, Decisive Leadership, and Reasons for Optimism

Hendrickson: Iowa Needs a Property Tax Solution

Ernst: Biden’s ‘Infrastructure’ Roadmap Is a Wrong Turn down a Dead-End Street.

I’ve come to the floor over the last few weeks to talk about the First Amendment, one of America’s most cherished pillars of freedom. Unfortunately, in recent years, we’ve seen a corrosive culture undermining sacred civic freedoms Americans risk taking for granted. Silencing the free exchange of ideas has infiltrated college campuses and the American workplace. It’s even affected journalism, in traditional media and across social media platforms.

We all know that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. And occasionally, we in the United States fall into a discussion about the technical boundaries of the First Amendment when we talk about the meaning and merits of free speech.

The health of our democracy depends on free speech to foster an informed public. The rigorous exchange of ideas informs debate on issues affecting our lives, and enables individuals to challenge power and orthodoxy.

In theory, the institutions of the Fourth Estate should be the staunchest defenders of the First Amendment.

So it’s been baffling to watch over the last year as some editors and executives at storied institutions crumple under pressures to police speech, to conform to orthodoxy and to stifle the exchange of ideas instead of promoting the contest of them.

It’s now old news, but last summer a longtime opinion editor at The New York Times was pushed out for having the audacity to publish an opinion piece written by Sen. Tom Cotton.

Apparently a group of readers and employees found his ideas so upsetting as to warrant the removal of the editor who published them. The paper also issued a several-hundred word editor’s note to express regret for publishing the piece in the first place.

If those readers and employees at the Times disagreed so strongly, the public could have learned something by publishing a counter-argument, instead of reading about their regret. I myself have publicly disagreed with Senator Cotton about a policy idea or two, and I made my points here on the Senate floor.

ADVERTISEMENT

Instead, we had executives at a paper of record scapegoat a colleague for failing to conform to some yet unexplained orthodoxy, versus the rational decision to engage in public debate on their own pages.

In January, Politico invited a slate of individuals to guest edit their widely-read newsletter, Playbook. Among those guest editors was Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator.

His name alone was enough to spark a backlash among staffers and even outside commentators. To their credit, the editors at Politico did not apologize.

But according to the Washington Post media writer, some Politico employees who privately supported the choice to publish Shapiro were “afraid” to speak up on staff calls, fearing backlash among colleagues.

These episodes represent an unhealthy environment—where some think it’s prudent to give voice to those with whom they agree or whose views are deemed acceptable.

While the editors did the right thing at one outlet, they didn’t at the other. Either way, it probably means they’ll be more selective about what is “acceptable” in the future, which certainly doesn’t serve those principles I mentioned earlier.

These may be fairly obscure controversies, but they’re indicative of a wider problem. Expectations of “acceptability” and a preference for unchallenged ideas chip away at our most sacred civic freedoms in America.

No one learns more from less debate.

Neglecting to defend free speech and champion the free exchange of ideas creates a pathway for censorship.

The institutions of the news media ought to defend the fundamental principles behind free speech and free press at the top of their lungs. The First Amendment is the oxygen of their own existence.

Last fall, the New York Post had a story censored on Twitter a short time before the election.

Regardless of what one thinks about the content of that story, the methods of reporting, or even the tone of the writing, the suppression of information like that should alarm both news writers and news consumers.

Many outlets went to work fact checking or reporting on the topic in their own way. That’s all well and good. It’s their job.

But the public conversation about the censorship devolved into a question of whether Twitter had the legal ability to do what it did instead of a discussion of whether it was right to do it.

It wasn’t right. Even Twitter’s CEO sees that now.

However, there were no fiery defenses of free speech and free press from mainstream outlets. Not even ones with caveats about the reporting.

ADVERTISEMENT

This was the perfect opportunity for journalistic institutions to weigh in. They have a dog in the fight. It should be the bread and butter issue for every editorial board across the country.

The lack of this kind of pro-free-press, pro-free-speech advocacy also contributes to the unhealthy environment that shuns debate and silences dissent.

So what will be the consequences of a media environment where conformity and comfort take precedence over the free exchange of ideas?

The first, and most obvious, is a less rigorous and less informed public discourse. Opinions and preferences, especially on matters of public interest, are always improved after being challenged.

If you disagree with the New York Times Editorial Board or a pundit on Fox News, that’s fine. It’d be better if the public heard all about it. Broader discussions mean broader understanding.

Without a broad, vigorous public debate, we lose empathy that results from engaging with someone else’s ideas. In these divisive times in society, empathy is in low supply.

The last thing we lose in a media environment ruled by compliance and conformity is the grand American tradition of dissent. Free speech and the free press have a centuries-long history in America. From Thomas Paine’s pamphlets to the tweets spreading across the land today, the revolutionary contest of ideas might take a different shape, but remains critical to our civic culture and continued growth as a nation.

I hope more institutions in the Fourth Estate will take a more aggressive approach advocating free speech. Now, I wasn’t around when Thomas Paine published “Common Sense,” but history and my own experience teaches two important lessons: the free exchange of ideas strengthens representative government and will help preserve our democratic republic for generations to come.

Tags: CensorshipChuck Grassleyfree pressfree speechU.S. Senate
ShareTweetShare
ADVERTISEMENT
Previous Post

Bill Prohibiting ‘Source of Income’ Housing Ordinances Heads to Governor

Next Post

Iowa House Approves Two Major Gun Bills, Including Permitless Carry

Chuck Grassley

Chuck Grassley

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has served as U.S. Senator representing Iowa since 1981. He is the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and chairs the Senate Finance Committee.

Related Posts

Iowa Senate Unanimously Passes Campus Free Speech Bill
State Government

Iowa Senate Unanimously Passes Campus Free Speech Bill

April 9, 2021
Ernst Says She Opposes the Idea of Vaccine Passports
Federal Government

Ernst Says She Opposes the Idea of Vaccine Passports

March 30, 2021
Ernst Says Congressional Democrats Are Attempting a ‘Power Grab’
Federal Government

Ernst Says Congressional Democrats Are Attempting a ‘Power Grab’

March 24, 2021
Some House Democrats Concerned About Overturning Miller-Meeks’ Election
Politics

Some House Democrats Concerned About Overturning Miller-Meeks’ Election

March 23, 2021
Ernst Expresses Concern About Trump’s Upcoming Senate Impeachment Trial
Opinion

Ernst: Sunshine is the Best Disinfectant – To Stop Waste, We First Need To Spot It

March 19, 2021
Grassley, Ernst Join Letter Pledging to Block Bills That Undermine Pro-Life Protections
Federal Government

Ernst and Grassley Highlight Sunshine Week

March 16, 2021
Next Post

Iowa House Approves Two Major Gun Bills, Including Permitless Carry

Ernst Expresses Concern About Trump’s Upcoming Senate Impeachment Trial

Ernst: Sunshine is the Best Disinfectant - To Stop Waste, We First Need To Spot It

Sign-Up For Our Daily Updates


Recommended Articles

Ashley Hinson Says She Does Not Support Another COVID-19 Lock-Down

Ashley Hinson Says She Does Not Support Another COVID-19 Lock-Down

November 14, 2020
Iowa Senate Panel Advances Gun Rights Amendment

Iowa Senate Panel Advances Gun Rights Amendment

January 21, 2021
AARP Iowa Warns About Scam Artists Posing as Clergy

AARP Iowa Warns About Scam Artists Posing as Clergy

April 7, 2021

Popular Stories

  • Ernst Visits Madison County Craft Beer Brewery

    Ernst Visits Madison County Craft Beer Brewery

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Iowa Teacher: Why I Resigned After 25 Years of Teaching

    1 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Iowa Senate Revises House Version of the Abortion Neutrality Amendment

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Former Congressman Bobby Schilling Dies After Battle With Cancer

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Iowa Senate Advances Parental Rights Bill

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
The Iowa Torch

The Iowa Torch​ is a for-profit, news organization that focuses on political news as it relates to Iowans.

Categories

  • Education
  • Federal Government
  • Iowa History
  • Local Government
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Politics
  • State Government

Newsletter


© 2020 The Iowa Torch, a publication of 4:15 Communications, LLC.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • State Government
  • Federal Government
  • Local Government
  • Politics
  • Education
  • Opinion

© 2021 The Iowa Torch, a publication of 4:15 Communications, LLC.

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?