Getting back to basics

by sonya hammond

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I, Constitution of the United States

A local TV newscast recently took telephone polls asking viewers their opinions on a couple of high profile Eugene, Oregon issues. The results of 500 responses, while not scientifically gathered, were nevertheless revealing:

87% of respondents approved leaving the large cross currently standing on Skinner Butte; 13% wanted it taken down.
70% of respondents approved the seizure by federal officials of the notes and film of the Register-Guard reporter and photographer who tried to cover the raid on the Warner Creek activists attempting to prevent forest logging; 30% disapproved.

It seems fair to assume that the public perception of our constitutional rights has strayed somewhat from what our forefathers had in mind. Even allowing for error; this poll strongly suggests that public opinion no longer favors separation of church and state, and sees little reason for freedom of the press.

So much for the Constitution.

Leaving the question of a Christian symbol occupying public space to those more closely associated with that issue, there remains an issue that is, arguably, far more basic. It was, in fact, so basic and of such concern to the framers of our Constitution, that the inclusion of freedom of the press in the First Amendment was almost redundant.

The Federalists believed the Constitution already proscribed the power of Congress to abridge that right. No one really disagreed, but the anti-Federalists in favor of the Amendment held strong suspicions that unless double-checked, the federal government would eventually become giddy with power and overstep itself all over the place.

Our admiration and gratitude for their incredible foresight should be boundless; these were men who had seen in action the power of a free press in the midst of revolution where it became a symbol of freedom itself.

Setting aside for the moment the questionable rationale behind the U.S. Forest Service edict to ban press access to a national forest area, or even that the press knew that they were defying that ban by attempting to bring facts to the public, there remains the irrefutable point that while federal officials with questionable powers of reasoning may have been within their rights to arrest the rebellious press, they had not one constitutional leg to stand on when they confiscated notes and film that were not relevant to the alleged 'crime'.

There is such a thing as 'due process'.

There is such a thing as freedom of the press guaranteed both by our federal constitution and Oregon law.

There is also such a thing as common sense, although that may be asking too much of any government entity, even in a democracy.

The public who so lightly approve the actions of federal officials doing a storm trooper turn in the over-zealous performance of their duty to protect us from both those who protested and those who would attempt to report the circumstances of their arrest, sadly miss the point. There is more at stake in 'freedom of the press' than the rights of a reporter to get a story or a newspaper to print it.

What is at stake is the public's right to read it. When government officials abridge that right, they send a powerful message. It is not one the public should approve.

Return to Politically Incorrect Page