One might think that the freedoms guaranteed to Americans in the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution should be sacrosanct, immune to attack from anyone.
Not so, of course. There are always people who want to limit freedom of religion or freedom of expression (which includes freedom of speech and freedom of the press)—for other people, of course, not for themselves.
The latest politician in Oklahoma to attempt such a restriction is State Senator Nathan Dahm (R, Broken Arrow), who has filed SB1837, which seeks to “avoid potential abuse of the freedom of the Press” (www.kosu.org/ local-news-2024-01-19/oklahoma-statesenator- authors-bill-to-limit-freedomof- the-press).
Dahm’s bill would include truly draconian measures that, if enacted, would not only severely restrict the right of citizens to know what’s going on in government, but could be the death knell for some print media that are already struggling financially because of declining subscriptions.
Among the requirements the bill lists for both individual journalists and the media outlets who employ them are these: each journalist or outlet would have to register with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, paying an exorbitant license fee ($250,000 yearly for the outlet); carry liability insurance (at a cost of $50 million for the outlet); and “attend an eight-hour ‘propaganda- free’ safety training developed by Prager U.”
The last of those listed requirements is laughable, since PragerU, contrary to its name, has nothing to do with any university but is a media company that produces videos targeting school children with right-wing propaganda. MediaBias, which monitors the various media for their reliability, lists PragerU as a “questionable source” (https:// mediabiasfactcheck.com/prageru/).
Unfortunately, some states (including Oklahoma) have allowed PragerU videos to be shown in classrooms.
Dahm’s bill would also require media outlets to place a disclaimer on each news story, stating: “Warning: this entity is known to provide propaganda. Consuming propaganda may be detrimental to your health and health [sic] of the republic.”
Fortunately, the bill is so extreme that it seems that even the Oklahoma legislature (which has lurched to the right in recent years) isn’t likely to enact it.
But the fact that such legislation is even being proposed is beyond scary.
Dahm’s bill is hardly the first attempt to control what can be printed in this country, and sadly it probably won’t be the last.
Over the years, myriad attempts have been made by politicians and others to exert such control, including the famous Pentagon Papers case.
That1970casehadtodowithwhether papers smuggled out of the Pentagon— revealing how the American public had been misled by several Presidents as to the degree of U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam—could be published by the New York Times and the Washington Post (www.history.com/topics/ united-states-constitution/freedom-ofthe- press).
A U.S. Supreme Court decision determined that then-President Nixon did not have the right to prevent publication of those papers, which contained information vital to allowing an informed public.
Freedom of the press is, in fact, constantly under attack by those who would benefit by having an uninformed public. So the public itself needs to be constantly on guard to protect this vital freedom.
Fortunately, those in the media, and others who value this important freedom—including Presidents and Supreme Court justices—do speak out against such attacks.
First Amendment Center scholar Ronald K. L. Collins has written: “A free press is one of the bulwarks of a free society. Without it, there can be no consent of the governed, no informed decision making and no check on the abuses of power. One of the vital roles of the press is to encourage citizens to participate in government by keeping them fully informed about life, law, politics, economics and other things that matter” (www.history.com).
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1937 that liberty “is indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth” and that, except in an emergency, the remedy for evil speech is “more speech, not enforced silence” (www.law. columbia.edu/news/archive/ free-speech-century-how-firstamendment- came-life).
Finally, President Thomas Jefferson (who had his own quarrels with what sometimes got printed about him and his administration) said: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost” (www.monticello.org/the-artof- citizenship/the-vitality-ofa- free-press).
I hope and trust that Senator Dahm’s attempt to place restrictions on freedom of the press, should SB1837 be voted on by the Oklahoma legislature, will go down to overwhelming defeat.
After all, if such restrictions had been in place this year in Oklahoma, we might very well not have learned about Dahm’s awful bill until too late.