Polarization and Free Speech

At RealClearPolitics, Carl Cannon reports on a new survey:

Traditionally, opposing censorship — whether imposed by government or corporations — was a bedrock principle of liberalism in this country. The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 to promote and defend free expression. And this ideal was at the heart of liberal thought, liberal lawmaking, and liberal jurisprudence during most of the 20^th century. But times change. And notwithstanding the controversial current push by social conservatives to denude public school libraries of content they dislike, the new RealClear Opinion Research poll is the latest to document the gradual change that has taken place on the left when it comes to this free expression. Here are some of its findings:

• Republican voters (74%) and independents (61%) believe speech should be legal “under any circumstances, while Democrats are almost evenly divided. A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.”

• Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans. Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories.

• Although majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree the news media should be able to report stories they believe are in the national interest, this consensus shifts when it comes to social media censorship. A majority of Democrats (52%) approve of the government censoring social media content under the rubric of protecting national security. Among Republicans and independents, this percentage is only one-third.

• Poll respondents were read this statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 31% of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with that sentiment, compared to 51% of Republicans.

• Fully three-fourths of Democrats believe government has a responsibility to limit “hateful” social media posts, while Republicans are more split, with 50% believing the government has a responsibility to restrict hateful posts. (Independents, once again, are in the middle.)

• Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to favor stifling the free speech rights of political extremists. Also, Republicans don’t vary by the group: Only about half of GOP voters favor censorship — whether asked about the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, or the Communist Party.

Christian Nation?

 Many posts have discussed the role of religion in American life. 

Stella Rouse and Shibley Telhami at Politico:

Our national poll included 2,091 participants, carried out May 6-16, 2022, with a margin of error of +/- 2.14 percent.

We started by asking participants if they believed the Constitution would even allow the United States government to declare the U.S. a “Christian Nation.” We found that 70 percent of Americans — including 57 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats — said that the Constitution would not allow such a declaration. (Indeed, the First Amendment says Congress can neither establish nor prohibit the practice of a religion.)

We followed up by asking: “Would You Favor or Oppose the United States Officially Declaring the United States to be a Christian Nation?” The findings were striking.

Overall, 62 percent of respondents said they opposed such a declaration, including 83 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans. Fully 61 percent of Republicans supported declaring the United States a Christian nation. In other words, even though over half of Republicans previously said such a move would be unconstitutional, a majority of GOP voters would still support this declaration.

Knowledge of Government

From the Annenberg Public Policy Center:

After two years of considerable improvement, Americans’ knowledge of some basic facts about their government has fallen to earlier levels, with less than half of those surveyed able to name the three branches of government for the 2022 Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s annual, nationally representative survey showed notable increases in 2020 and 2021 after tumultuous years that put the role of government and the three branches under a media spotlight. In those two years, the survey was run amid a pandemic and government health restrictions, two impeachment inquiries, a presidential election, an attempt to disrupt congressional certification of the electoral vote, criminal trials of the individuals charged in the assault on the U.S. Capitol, and waves of social justice protests, among other events.

The current survey, released for Constitution Day (Sept. 17), found the first drop in six years among those who could identify all three branches of government, and declines among those who could name the First Amendment rights, though knowledge remained high on some other questions. Additional findings on the Supreme Court will be released next month.

“When it comes to civics, knowledge is power,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s troubling that so few know what rights we’re guaranteed by the First Amendment. We are unlikely to cherish, protect, and exercise rights if we don’t know that we have them.”
Highlights

• Less than half of U.S. adults (47%) could name all three branches of government, down from 56% in 2021 and the first decline on this question since 2016.
• The number of respondents who could, unprompted, name each of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment also declined, sharply in some cases. For example, less than 1 in 4 people (24%) could name freedom of religion, down from 56% in 2021.
• Over half of Americans (51%) continue to assert incorrectly that Facebook is required to let all Americans express themselves freely on its platform under the First Amendment.
• But large numbers recognize other rights in the Bill of Rights and the veto process.

The Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey is a nationally representative survey conducted annually in advance of Constitution Day by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania. This year’s survey of 1,113 U.S. adults was conducted by phone for APPC by independent research company SSRS on August 2-13, 2022. It has a margin of error of ± 3.6 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The year-to-year changes reported here are statistically significant unless noted otherwise. For the questions and additional data, see the appendix and the methodology statement.

Bipartisan Anti-Democratic Sentiment

David Nather and Margaret Talev at Axios:

About one in three Americans prefers strong unelected leaders to weak elected leaders and says presidents should be able to remove judges over their decisions, according to the latest findings from our Axios-Ipsos Two Americas Index.

Why it matters: The findings from this poll shatter the myth that Americans overwhelmingly agree on a common set of democratic values around checks and balances on elected leaders, protection of minority rights and freedom of speech.They're also a reality check against President Biden's speech that portrayed threats to democracy as solely driven by Republican supporters of former President Trump who refuse to accept that he lost the 2020 election.

What we're watching:

• In this poll, significant minorities of Republicans and Democrats supported non-democratic norms in about equal percentages — and Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say presidents should be able to remove judges when their decisions go against the national interest.Many Americans also believe the government should follow the will of the majority even at the expense of ethnic and religious minority groups' civil rights.
• And roughly a third said the federal government should be able to prosecute members of the news media who make offensive or unpatriotic statements.
• Respondents younger than 35 or with household incomes below $75,000 a year were more likely to favor strong unelected leaders and to support prosecuting the media or empowering presidents to remove judges.

Trevor Noah on Press Freedom

 

“Because this is America…and here, RIGHT MATTERS.” https://t.co/zm7p7hAVrP

— Rachel Vindman 🌻 (@natsechobbyist) May 1, 2022

Vaccination in Court

Many posts have discussed COVID, disinformation, and vaccine hesitancy.

Unanimous and all-GOP 7th Circuit panel (Reagan, Trump, Trump) makes quick work turning away students who argue Indiana University’s vaccination requirement is unconstitutional https://t.co/GvHAbexg2j pic.twitter.com/SPjOzy1pre

— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) August 2, 2021

Scott Jaschik at Inside Higher Ed:

Writing for the panel, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote: "People who do not want to be vaccinated may go elsewhere. Many universities require vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, but many others do not. Plaintiffs have ample educational opportunities."

...
He added: "Each university may decide what is necessary to keep other students safe in a congregate setting. Health exams and vaccinations against other diseases ... are common requirements of higher education. Vaccination protects not only the vaccinated persons but also those who come into contact with them, and at a university close contact is inevitable."
...

In addition, the judges noted that a university may do things to students because they are students, such as charging them tuition. "Undergraduates must part with at least $11,000 a year (in-state tuition) even though Indiana could not summarily confiscate that sum from all residents of college age."

The appeals court also said the First Amendment does not protect the students from the requirement. "The First Amendment means that a state cannot tell anyone what to read or write, but a state university may demand that students read things they prefer not to read and write things they prefer not to write. A student must read what a professor assigns, even if they student deems the books heretical, and must write exams or essays as required. A student who is told to analyze the role of nihilism in Dostoevsky's The Possessed but who submits an essay about Iago's motivations in Othello will flunk."

Ban Critical Race Theory?

 

Yes, and it’s not even close. Bans on teaching “divisive concepts” (the phrase many of these laws use) runs counter to decades of First Amendment precedent. Moreover, dramatically limiting the First Amendment in higher ed wouldn’t work out the way the right likes. https://t.co/lpLboaWuAi

— David French (@DavidAFrench) May 29, 2021

Viral, Indeed: A Crowded Hallway and an Outbreak

Ty Tagami, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The Paulding County high school that became infamous for hallways crowded with unmasked students reported a half-dozen students and three staffers in the school with COVID-19, the school district told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Saturday.

“At this time, we know there were six students and three staff members who were in school for at least some time last week who have since reported to us that they have tested positive,” says a letter from North Paulding High School Principal Gabe Carmona to parents Saturday. A spokesman for the Paulding County School District gave a copy of the letter to the AJC.

North Paulding High and its school district, which began the school year Monday, made national news this past week after images of the crowded hallways went viral after being posted to social media.

The school district suspended two students, including one who publicly acknowledged posting one of the photos. The punishment led to a national outcry from critics who said school leaders were trying to silence the students. After the pushback, the district relented and lifted the suspensions on Friday.

Six students and three staff members have tested positive for COVID-19 at North Paulding High School in Georgia, where a photo showing a hallway packed with maskless students went viral last week. https://t.co/tMEMBIDAPL

— Axios (@axios) August 9, 2020

SCOTUS Okays Scholarships for Religious Schools

Many posts have discussed the role of religion in American life.

Edith Roberts at SCOTUSblog:

Court-watchers are focusing on Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, in which the court held on Tuesday that Montana’s exclusion of religious schools from a state-funded scholarship program for private schools violates the First Amendment. At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Ilya Somin finds it “unfortunate” that the decision was “a close 5-4 ruling, split along ideological lines with the five conservative justices in the majority, and the four liberals all dissenting,” because “[s]triking down blatant government discrimination on the basis of religion should not be so controversial and divisive.” At National Review, Dan McLaughlin observes that “the case also likely marks a long-overdue death blow to openly anti-Catholic Blaine amendments adopted by many states in the 1870s and 1880s and defended by anti-religious progressives and public-school teachers’ unions to this day.” In an op-ed for The Washington Post (subscription required), Adam Laats argues that the historical analysis in Espinoza ignores “the basic provision enshrined long before the 1870s: American public education should use tax dollars to teach children how to read, write and become better citizens, not to teach them any religious ideas.”

At Dorf on Law, Michael Dorf questions the majority’s conclusion that the plaintiffs were treated unequally even though the Montana Supreme Court eliminated the scholarship program for everyone. At Take Care, Ira Lupu and Robert Tuttle warn that after Espinoza, “those who still believe that the Constitution precludes state involvement in promoting religious thought and experience have some work cut out for them.” Also at Take Care, Caroline Mala Corbin agrees that “Espinoza leaves us with a gluttonous Free Exercise Clause, and a starved Establishment Clause.” The editors of National Review point to “the real stakes in Espinoza: fear that parents will vote with their feet to choose religious schools over the public-school monopoly.” Additional commentary comes from Richard Garnett at the Federalist Society blog and Scott Cosenza at Liberty Nation.

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on C-SPAN

From C-SPAN:

NEW LESSON: Civil Liberties and the Coronavirus (7 Clips)
The U.S. Constitution provides for a balance of power between the federal and state governments while protecting the rights of citizens. Securing those rights during a time of crisis can be challenging. With the stay-at-home orders that have been enacted in states across the country during this time, people are discussing the impacts on their lives. In this lesson, students will explore the powers granted to the federal and state governments and how they relate to specific constitutional amendments.

Below you will also find selections of resources relating to individual rights. These Lessons and Bell Ringers provide historical and modern context to rights found in the Constitution and expanded upon through laws and Supreme Court cases. For additional resources not listed below visit our Individual Rights and Liberties Featured Resources site.

Individual Rights and Liberties:

• Lesson: The Bill of Rights in Modern Times (2 Clips)
• Lesson: Predecessors to the Bill of Rights (6 Clips)
• Lesson: The Expansion of Voting in the United States (10 Clips)
• Lesson: Rights of the Accused (3:34)
• Lesson: The Right to an Attorney and the Public Defender System (6 Clips)
• Lesson: Jury Trials in Criminal Cases (5 Clips)
• Lesson: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) (9 Clips)
• Lesson: Title IX (7 Clips)
• Bell Ringer: Free Speech and the First Amendment (5:17)
• Bell Ringer: The Free Exercise of Religion (3 Clips)
• Bell Ringer: Freedom of Press in the United States and Around the World (3:19)
• Bell Ringer: The Right to Petition the Government (1:46)
• Bell Ringer: The History of the 4th Amendment (4:56)
• Bell Ringer: Eminent Domain and Property Rights (3:44)
• Bell Ringer: The 14th Amendment and Incorporation (2:05)
• Lesson: Key Events of the Civil Rights Movement (15 Clips)
• Deliberation: Should Hate Speech Be Protected By the First Amendment? (14 Clips)
• Deliberation: Should the voting age be lowered to 16? (9 Clips)
• Deliberation: What policy should the government enact to protect data privacy? (10 Clips)

Individual Rights and Supreme Court Cases:

• Lesson: 2nd Amendment Cases: DC v. Heller & McDonald v. Chicago (6 Clips)
• Bell Ringer: Morse v. Frederick: The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case (2 Clips)
• Lesson: Tinker v. Des Moines (12 Clips)
• Lesson: New York Times v. United States (9 Clips)
• Lesson: Gideon v. Wainwright (10 Clips)
• Lesson: Miranda v. Arizona (7 Clips)
• Lesson: Korematsu v. United States (6 Clips)
• Lesson: Schenck v. United States (6 Clips)
• Lesson: Voting Discrimination and the Effects of Shelby County v. Holder (8 Clips)

Easter Shutdowns

Jonathan Turley at The Hill:

In Arkansas, Pastor Chad Gonzales of Awaken Church defied demands to end services. His declaration of Jesus as a coronavirus victim was based on the belief that Jesus took away every sin and disease on the cross, a particularly powerful message for Easter. Similarly, Pastor Tony Spell of the Life Tabernacle Church in Louisiana was arrested for holding large services. Spell declared his intention to hold large Easter services and insisted that he will never yield to this “dictator law.” Even more chilling was his statement that “true Christians do not mind dying.”

If this were a matter of just congregants dying, a constitutional argument could be made for the right to make a self destructive decision based on faith. Adults can forgo simple medicines or transfusions that would save their lives. Likewise, the snake handlers in West Virginia can still engage in that dangerous practice based on a passage in the Bible that the faithful “shall take up serpents” and the story of Paul surviving a venomous viper. Yet even in practices that kill only the faithful, many states have outlawed snake handling as dangerous to both humans and snakes.

One of the key factors in any constitutional review is whether free exercise of religion is truly being denied, as suggested by these pastors. There is a curtailing of free exercise of religion, including the important element of congregating together in faith, but these orders only temporarily halt one form of faithful expression and do not stop worshiping. Most faiths have moved online during the lockdown. Just as states can force churches to satisfy building or fire codes, they can bar congregating in churches and temples as public health risks in a pandemic like this one.

The objection from these pastors is not frivolous as there is a substantial curtailment in an expression of faith. But this is not an effort to establish a favored state church. It is content neutral on particular faiths impacted by the limitation on crowd size. Their views are not frivolous, but they are still reckless. Free exercise of religion does not allow dangerous acts, even if they are part of a demonstration of faith. A pastor should not be able to disregard public health limits on congregation size to fight a pandemic threat any more than he can disregard a fire safety threat.

James Madison on Freedom of the Press

Many posts have discussed freedom of the press in the United States.

James Madison, The Report of 1800, January 7, 1800.

Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true, than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the states, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches, to their luxuriant growth, than by pruning them away, to injure the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect, that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression...

First Amendment and College Publications

Doug Lederman at Inside Higher Ed:

"The worst in collegiate journalism since 1982!" The Koala, a student publication at the University of California, San Diego, boasts on its home page.

But a student publication is a student publication, whether it traffics in satire or offensive material (as many at UCSD believe The Koala does) or, more traditionally, in nonfake news. And if a public university allows student publications to compete with other student groups for funds, barring the publication in retaliation for content it published violates its free press and free speech rights, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a lower court's 2017 ruling dismissing The Koala's lawsuit against UCSD. The appeals court found that the student publication had offered sufficient evidence to suggest the university (and its student government) had changed their policies for funding student groups to single out and retaliate against The Koala.

The Koala describes itself formally as "a student-run humor publication" and less formally as a "safe and clean atmosphere for normal UCSD students to get drunk (on life) and write funny stuff. We also are not as dumb as we look, so don’t f--- with us." Its history of alienating students earned it a 2014 profile in The New York Times with the headline "Free to Be Mean: Does This Student Satire Cross the Line?"

The university's student government tried multiple times to end funding for The Koala, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education says, but had been told repeatedly that it could not strip funding for any one publication without violating the First Amendment.

Pence

At The Guardian, Lloyd Green reviews biographies of Mike Pence:

Almost predictably, D’Antonio and Eisner manifest their displeasure with Pence from the outset. They rightly tag him for his tropism toward other people’s money and his discomfort with modernity. All of which is understandable, to a point.

What is disappointingly left unaddressed is that the US is the world’s most religious wealthy country, where two-in-five claim to pray daily and where evangelicals comprise nearly the same ratio in our armed forces, despite being only a quarter of the population.

The fact is the first amendment’s free exercise clause was designed to protect those who embrace discomforting creeds. In a narrow 7-2 decision this June, the supreme court sided with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. In the majority’s view, the Colorado civil rights commission demonstrated “hostility” to the baker’s religious beliefs by ordering him to undergo anti-discrimination training.

Politicians less doctrinaire and more capable of nuance than Pence may yet be able to achieve a modus vivendi. With the Democrats in desperate search of a foothold in red America, the percentage of religious nones growing and evangelicals not backing down anytime soon, that result may even be a matter of civil and political necessity.

Atttitudes Toward the Media and Press Freedom

A release from Ipsos:

Even if they are not “fake news” or “the enemy of the people”, it is clear that the reputation of the news media is under siege. According to the General Social Survey, the number of Americans with some or a great deal of trust in the press has dropped 30 percentage points since the late 1970s. Ipsos recently conducted a survey with the American public to better understand how Americans currently view the press and public support for efforts to restrict journalism. While we found that the large majority of Americans support the concept of the 1st Amendment, there are worrying signs that freedom of the press might be conditional to many people.

First off, the good news. The large majority of Americans, 85%, agree that the “Freedom of the press is essential for American democracy.” Additionally, two-thirds (68%) say that “reporters should be protected from pressure from government or big business interests.” Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree with these two statements signaling deep support for the concept of freedom of the press.
Some of the limits of public support for freedom of the press are made stark with a quarter of Americans (26%) saying they agree “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior,” including a plurality of Republicans (43%). Likewise, most Americans (72%) think “it should be easier to sue reporters who knowingly publish false information.”

Unanimity starts to break down as we more grounded questions. While a plurality – 46% -- agree “most news outlets try their best to produce honest reporting”, there are very stark splits by the partisan identification of the respondent with most Democrats (68%) generally believing in the good intent of journalists, but comparatively few Republicans (29%). And when we ask questions with specific partisan cues, the political split is very wide. For instance, 80% of Republicans but only 23% of Democrats agree that “most news outlets have a liberal bias,” and 79% of Republicans but only 11% of Democrats agree, “the mainstream media treats President Trump unfairly. Returning to President Trump’s views on the press, almost a third of the American people (29%) agree with the idea that “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” including a plurality of Republicans (48%).

A final statistic is somewhat reassuring, only 13% of Americans agree that “President Trump should close down mainstream news outlets, like CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times.” Here less than a quarter of Republicans (23%) agree along with fewer than one in ten Democrats (8%).

Trump Can't Block People on Twitter

From Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion for Summary Judgment. We conclude that we have jurisdiction to entertain this dispute. Plaintiffs have established legal injuries that are traceable to the conduct of the President and Daniel Scavino and, despite defendants' suggestions to the contrary, their injuries are redressable by a favorable judicial declaration. Plaintiffs lack standing, however, to sue Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is dismissed as a defendant. Hope Hicks is also dismissed as a defendant, in light of her resignation as White House Communications Director. Turning to the merits of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests. In sum, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 34 and 42. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 5/23/2018) (ama) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

Corporate Speech

Thomas Wheatley at The Hill writes of a 1978 SCOTUS case.

The case, known as First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, challenged the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law that censored speech by corporations on ballot measures. The law included criminal penalties.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the law, reversing the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. “We … find no support” the Court held, “for the proposition that speech that otherwise would be within the protection of the First Amendment loses that protection simply because its source is a corporation...”
...

For decades, the Supreme Court has recognized a corporation's right to free speech. The Citizens United opinion alone cites 25 cases supporting this point, the first cited case being Bellotti, though it was not the first such decision. Nor, as some have suggested, has the Court ever recognized a so-called “media exemption,” which would grant press outlets full First Amendment protection, but not other corporations. Indeed, the Court has explicitly rejected that argument.

Free Speech, Fake News, and the Internet

From Pew:

When asked to choose between the U.S. government taking action to restrict false news online in ways that could also limit Americans’ information freedoms, or protecting those freedoms even if it means false information might be published, Americans fall firmly on the side of protecting freedom. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (58%) say they prefer to protect the public’s freedom to access and publish information online, including on social media, even if it means false information can also be published. Roughly four-in-ten (39%) fall the other way, preferring that the U.S. government take steps to restrict false information even if it limits those freedoms, according to a survey conducted Feb. 26-March 11, 2018, among 4,734 U.S. adults who are members of Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel.

When the same question is posed about technology companies taking those steps, however, the balance changes. More U.S. adults (56%) favor technology companies taking steps to restrict false information, even if it limits the public’s freedom to access and publish information. By comparison, 42% prefer to protect those freedoms rather than have tech companies take action, even if it means the presence of some misinformation online.

Trump and the Networks

Trump on the FCC:

With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2017

From  the FCC itself (emphasis added):

We license only individual broadcast stations. We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations with which stations have relationships (such as PBS or NPR), except to the extent that those entities may also be station licensees. We also do not regulate information provided over the Internet, nor do we intervene in private disputes involving broadcast stations or their licensees. Instead, we usually defer to the parties, courts, or other agencies to resolve such disputes.

But even if FCC does not license networks themselves, it can cause trouble for media companies.  On September 15, 1972, Nixon talked about using it to punish The Washington Post.

PRESIDENT: The Post has asked -- it's going to have its problems.

HALDEMAN: (Unintelligible)

DEAN: The networks, the networks are good with Maury [Maurice Stans]coming back three days in a row and --

PRESIDENT: That's right. Right. The main thing is the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one. They have a television station.

DEAN: That's right, they do.

PRESIDENT: And they're going to have to get it renewed.

HALDEMAN: They've got a radio station, too.

PRESIDENT: Does that come up too? The point is, when does it come up?

DEAN: I don't know. But the practice of nonlicensees filing on top of licensees has certainly gotten more,...

PRESIDENT: That's right.
DEAN: more active in the, in the area.

PRESIDENT: And it's going to be God damn active here.

DEAN: (Laughs)

PRESIDENT: Well, the game has to be played awfully rough.

Constitution Day: Constitutional Ignorance

From the Annenberg Public Policy Center:

Many Americans are poorly informed about basic constitutional provisions, according to a new national survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

The annual Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey finds that:

• More than half of Americans (53 percent) incorrectly think it is accurate to say that immigrants who are here illegally do not have any rights under the U.S. Constitution;
• More than a third of those surveyed (37 percent) can’t name any of the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment;
• Only a quarter of Americans (26 percent) can name all three branches of government.

“Protecting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution presupposes that we know what they are. The fact that many don’t is worrisome,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania. “These results emphasize the need for high-quality civics education in the schools and for press reporting that underscores the existence of constitutional protections.”