May 20, 2008

Rob Briley, Meet the First Amendment

State Rep. Rob Briley, who will vastly improve the state legislature by leaving it at the end of this year, today threatened the free press with loss of some of its freedom if it doesn't use information in a "responsible" way.

Briley said that government needs to be "as open as possible."

"But the press needs to understand that if they're not responsible with that information, that they're not going to have access to it anymore," Briley said.

Rep. Briley, the First Amendment is the constitutional guarantee of the right of the people to use the printing press. That's an old-fashioned way of saying the people and the news media have a right to publish and disseminate information as they see fit. Back then, that was done with printing press and by public speeches. Today, it's that - plus broadcast media, the Internet and things like YouTube.

The First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press was rooted in the founding fathers' belief that good government required it, and open records laws flow from the believe that good government is government opened to public scrutiny and criticism.

But now, Rep. Briley comes along and says that if he and other elected officials decide the media or the public aren't using information responsibly - as he defines responsible - that the government will just have to take the right to that information away.

The good news: Elected officials like Rob Briley don't get to define how information may be used - otherwise they might try to cover up their arrest reports and video of their drunken tirades.

We'll always have Watertown.

Update: This isn't the first time Briley has tried to attack basic press freedoms. In 2007 Briley pushed legislation designed to greatly increase the risk bloggers of defamation suits, including a "presumption of malice intent" if a blogger did not immediately remove content that someone claimed was defamatory. The legislation would have made it easier for politicians like Briley to silence online critics, and easier for trial lawyers like Briley to make money representing clients suing bloggers. Irony alert: Briley actually credited my blog's "thoughtful and complete analysis" of his anti-free speech legislation for convincing him to withdraw it.

Update: Kay Brooks bids Briley good riddance.

Update: More good commentary from Pulle and Peebles

Pulle:

Yup, that's just what we need. A lecture on responsibility from this guy.

Listen, the media didn't have anything to do with Briley's personal destruction; he did it all to himself. The drunken, pathetic outbursts, the extramarital affair with a lobbyist, the flight from a rehab center to the warm, welcoming confines of a casino in Tunica - we couldn't have made that up if we wanted to. That was all Briley. We, and particularly our own Jeff Woods, just covered his fall from grace, and we didn't even include everything we knew to be true. If anything, he should be grateful for our discretion.

The pot was calling the kettle "black" so hard just now that it had a heart attack...