Everyone’s tendency is to oversimplify issues that are complex. The oversimplification allows us to make quick decisions. In fact, oversimplification is actually a good thing, according to many biologists. And, Father Orthoduck actually agrees with them. In the case of danger, it is a good thing that human beings are able to take a glance at a situation, generalize, reach a conclusion, and take quick action. However, in certain fields, it is much better if we learn to think in a more complex way. Here is a story that illustrates what Father Orthoduck is trying to say.
A small Tennessee-based newspaper has become the center of a free speech firestorm after it was banned from a grocery store chain and a KFC for allegedly publishing “hate” speech.
The Rutherford Reader, a family owned and operated business, runs feature columns of local interest, many of which lately have related to controversy surrounding a mosque being built in Rutherford County.
The columns didn’t sit well with at least one patron who complained to several companies that they amounted to hate speech after a guest columnist in April referred to Islam as “evil.” One month later, the Reader was dropped from Kroger grocery stores, and soon after from a local KFC.
Now the paper is threatening to sue, saying this is a blatant breach of its First Amendment rights.
“When a group or individual can force a corporation to take something out of their store which is printed material and not offensive, then we’re headed in the wrong direction,” Pete Doughtie, the Rutherford Reader’s co-owner and publisher, told FoxNews.com.
But the Reader’s material was offensive, Kroger concluded. . .
Can you see the conflict? If you cannot, let Father Orthoduck spell it out for you. There are at least three issues involved. Father Orthoduck suspects that a lawyer would find several more.
- There is the issue of freedom of the press. Many claim that the press should be immune from almost any regulation. They should never ever be forced to publish anything they would not wish to publish. The converse is that the press should never ever be forced to refrain from publishing anything they would wish to publish.
- There is the issue of freedom of speech. Any individual should be able to speak freely and to be able to spread his/her views in a public way. To some extent, this has to do with the issue of the right to be heard. Newspapers should not be able to censor the news in such a way that certain viewpoints are excluded from the public discourse.
- There is the issue of individual ownership. No private business should be forced to comply with governmental regulations unless they are absolutely necessary. Note that the definition of absolutely necessary varies to widely in different political circles that it becomes almost undefinable.
Have you noticed that each one of these issues could be classified as a conservative issue? Freedom of the press is extremely important. Freedom of speech is extremely important. The last one is not actually listed in the Bill of Rights, and that is the issue of a business owner having the right to conduct his/her business in the way in which the owner wishes. This is the issue that hung Rand Paul up and got him in trouble.
So, what does one do when there are conflicting issues? Why, one goes to the Supreme Court and tries to convince that court to back one’s view. That is what the news story mentions. The newspaper is trying to force the individual business to stock its publications. In other words, there is a conflict between two freedoms. Now, if you were to read either conservative or liberal publications, it might be hard to understand the basic issues. Depending on one’s political views, either an individual business owner should be able to refuse to accept an advertisement for any reason, or any group should be able to publish its views in any local newspaper, regardless of its owners (note that there are two issues involved here, freedom of the press and freedom of the individual business owner).
How does one decide which is the more important freedom? It is not an easy matter, and that is what Father Orthoduck wishes to point out. Too many conservatives try to argue that the Supreme Court ought only to rule on the basis of written law. But, what happens when that law sets up a conflictive situation? Liberals say that one makes a considered decision which may not be a forever decision. Conservatives try to say that there is only one forever solution, uhm, on which they cannot agree.
In the meantime, we have all too many people giving simplistic opinions based on personal belief. We need more people that can evaluate complexities, and fewer people with simplistic answers.
I’ve been following this series and have had little to say, largely because I’ve generally agreed with just about everything you’ve written. However, in this specific case, I don’t see where the law as written establishes a conflict that needs to be resolved. Here’s the first amendment, which is the amendment in question.
“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.”
The newspaper is free to publish anything it wishes and the columnist in question has the freedom to say anything he thinks. But just because you have the freedom to say or publish something in no way compels me to either listen to you or to help you distribute your ideas. We’ve all seen those cases where people feel entitled to say anything they want in a comment on someone’s blog. And when those comments are edited or removed by the owner of the blog, we often see those people complaining that their freedom of speech is being violated. It’s the same principle at work here. Just because you publish something, no private individual or business is compelled by law to help you distribute it.
The first amendment limits what government can or cannot do. In this case, the government is not involved and is there is not another law or amendment (such as the Civil Rights Act) that compels them to intervene. The newspaper is perfectly free to hire individuals to stand on the public spaces in front of those businesses (assuming all licensing codes are followed, of course) and hand out their publication. They are free to stage protests against those businesses for their actions if they think customers of those businesses care. But I don’t see any conflict between the various rights or laws in this specific case.
Had it been simply a case of a grocery chain not stocking a certain newspaper, then it would simply be a dispute. But, notice that near the end of the article cited, it is mentioned that the newspaper had hired a lawyer and is seriously considering legal action to force the grocery store chain to stock its newspaper. What makes the story even more interesting is that the newspaper claims to be the only conservative newspaper in the area. Yet, conservatives are normally against forcing a private business to stock a particular publication.
So, this brought up my comments on political philosophy and conflicts. It also let me make my point that things are not always as simple as they seem. Now we have a conservative newspaper leading boycotts and demonstrations to force a private business owner to stock the newspaper. Note that the newspaper is sold in several other stores and that its circulation has gone up, so it is certainly not an issue of “suppression” unless suppression is defined in such a way that it forces everyone to stock that newspaper. But, then the “rights” of the business owner are compromised.
Note that the newspaper is also arguing that a “suppression” of freedom of the press can occur if it is not available to be sold in various venues. And it implies that if the grocery store stocks any other newspapers or magazines then it must stock its newspaper or magazine otherwise the grocery store is guilty of a violation of freedom of the press. In other words, here is a conservative newspaper arguing for a “Fairness Doctrine.”
I would not normally think that the newspaper has a leg to stand on. But, here we are probably headed for the courts in a case that violates the actual conservative political philosophy that the newspaper claims to uphold! The title to my post and my writing did not adequately express what I had in mind. Here is a newspaper with an internal conflict in its own political philosophy. It is resolving it by appealing to what are normally considered to be “liberal” arguments. From there flow my comments about the issue of freedoms being more complex than are normally presented.
I think it is not about conservative of liberal–it is about the almighty dollar–and a lawsuit sure increases circulation.
Oh so true! I was trying not to make it a conservative vs liberal issue, because it is not. I was trying to point out that all of us encounter situations in which our political beliefs conflict against each other and there is no simple solution.
Sounds like a case of freedom of press and property rights working just fine. 🙂
You can print anything you want. I can decide what goods I will sell in my place of business.
Freedom of the press doesn’t imply any obligation on anyone else’s part to distribute or listen to what’s printed. If what you’re producing isn’t supplying a demand, then don’t quit your day job.
Right! But, remember I pointed out that the article points out that the newspaper had gotten a lawyer because the newspaper does not believe that the grocery store should have the right to keep them out. I agree with you that so far it has worked as it should. The newspaper (not me) is claiming that freedom of the press requires that the newspaper be available in that grocery store alongside other newspapers and magazines that they may stock. I think this is a wrong claim, but this post grew out of looking at that conflict and thinking about the various times when two of our freedoms may conflict. Maybe I should have picked a better example to bring that point out. 🙂