Where does it say in the Constitution that the President has the power to regulate media?
Trump recently stated that he is considering an executive order that will regulate Google, Facebook and other online social media outlets because they hide issues and evidence about conservative tenets yet promote liberal viewpoints.
Trump makes these claims about the media outlets without any evidence, but this blog will still examine the idea of an executive order to regulate media.
Even if the social media outlets did downplay conservative issues while at the same time promoting liberal ones, as Trump suggests, they have every right to do as they please.
So, let’s look at four issues, three of which are clauses in the 1st amendment and a third that is a logical application from many Supreme Court decisions:
- - A clause in the 1st amendment says Congress has no power to regulate the press;
- - Another clause states that there shall be no law preventing people from assembling;
- - A third clause states that people shall have a right to petition the government to answer to their concerns; and,
- - The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” when applying Constitutional principle. (1)
Here is the 1st amendment in its entirety:
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.
Here are details to the issues.
The first clause that prevents the President from regulating the press is:
- - “Congress shall make no law respecting…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
The legality of recent executive orders aside, it is still a legal instrument of the United States government.
Since Executive orders are an instrument of the government, it has no power to order any action that is against Constitutional principles.
An executive order that is issued by the President directing social media outlets to follow guidelines or issue rules that regulates the social media outlet’s content, is unconstitutional.
The second clause in the 1st amendment that prevents the President from issuing an executive order that restrict the social media outlets is:
- - Congress shall make no law that prevents “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”.
Assembling is not always as we think of it, that is, people physically being in the same geographic place at the same time.
Assembling can also be a formal network of people that belong to an organization, or, it can be an informal assembly of people that visit a website throughout their day.
The website, in this case, a social media outlet, has the right to draw to it only the people who are the same mindset as the outlet or its owners.
To attract the people the outlet wants, it will present information and entertainment that is deemed important and useful to these people.
This is no different than a campaign rally held by a presidential candidate. The candidate will only want his or her supporters at the event.
With only having people that support the candidate at the event it avoids hecklers and others that may present opposing arguments to the statements made by the candidate.
An executive order that violates the outlet’s ability to draw the type of people they want to their site is unconstitutional.
The third clause of the 1st amendment states that people have a right to ask the government to address their issues.
- - “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
A social media outlet may from time to time, present facts, information and entertainment that they want the government and the culture to address.
To confuse the user of the outlet about which issues they want the government to address means that less people will choose to join the outlet in asking the government to address issues.
Let’s return to above about a presidential campaign rally.
The candidate stands on the stage alone backed by people that support him.
The people behind the candidate are chosen because of their support of the presidential candidate.
The signs, the clothes and the actions they take are in support of the candidate and no others are allowed.
It is so the candidate can say these are my ideas and these people support me.
No different then a social media outlet doing the same thing.
An executive order that forces the outlet to present information that isn’t consistent with their goals would be a violation of the Constitution.
Finally, the Supreme Court rulings that decided that corporations are people.
- - Numerous Supreme Court rulings (2)
All the above presented arguments are meant to be directed at individuals. After all, that is the focus of the Constitution.
But social media outlets are corporations, not unlike many other media outlets such as the New York Times, the ABC network and CBS radio.
The Supreme Court has ruled many times about extending Constitutional rights to corporations, all in favor of expanding their rights and not retracting them. (2)
Since corporations are afforded the same rights as individuals, then all rights that are explicitly and implicitly in the Constitution apply to corporations.
The 1st amendment of the Constitution apply to corporations and an executive order that limits 1st amendment rights is unconstitutional.
In conclusion:
- An executive order that is issued by a President that directs social media outlets to follow guidelines or issue rules that regulates the social media outlet’s content, is unconstitutional.
- An executive order that violates the outlet’s ability to draw the type of people they want to their site is unconstitutional.
- An executive order that forces the outlet to present information that isn’t consistent with their goals would be a violation of the Constitution.
- The 1st amendment of the Constitution apply to corporations and an executive order that limits 1st amendment rights is unconstitutional.
Any President issuing an executive order that regulates social media outlets is in violation of Constitutional principles and Supreme Court rulings.
- (1) The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” when applying Constitutional principles. While I don’t think that was a correct decision, I am going with it right now. Both, because it is the “Law” but also because those on the right that might agree with Trump most likely support the Corporations are People concept.
No comments:
Post a Comment