OCR Text |
Show THE VOICE OF EU3JWS U mksHJ ' - -j' b. . , M fin K fKDCS r T1 By Richard L. LeHher.Prrsmen! Chamber of Commerce of the United Suite Does business really have the right of free speech? The question may seem ridiculous, but perhaps it is not, given what has just happened to the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation. The Kaiser maintains it has a perfect right to speak its mind in public, i agree. What's more, I believe the Supreme Court does too. Last year, the National Chamber of Commerce filed a brief in the Supreme Cour t supporting five corporations which were suing the state of Massachusetts over a question ' involving free speech. The companies wanted to campaign against a proposed amendment to that state's constitution which would have permitted a graduated tax on personal income. But the state did not want to let therm The Court decided in favor of the companies and made two very important impor-tant points: First, ii ruled that speech has an inherent worth, and that the freedom to inform the public does not depend on the identity of the source, be it a corporation, an association, a union or individuals; second, the Court said the public itself should be the final judge of the relative merits of conflicting conflic-ting opinions. In other words, the First Amendment does not "belong" to any definable category of persons; it belongs to all who exercise its freedoms. C-jiting back to the Kaiser case, can a question be raised as to the content of tie proposed Kaiser commercials? Were they, perhaps, maliciously worded, word-ed, biased or unsuitably controversial? On the contrary, upon reading them one is struck by how balanced and moderate they are. They seem as American as apple pie. !n its spot on free enterprise, Kaiser does not make opinionated statements; it asks questions. For example; "Is free enterprise an endangered species?, to cite just two of the six. But rather than give its own answers, Kaiser says; "The answers are up to you. Whatever your views, let your elected represen-. represen-. iatives know." In Us spot on energy, the company makes statements, but they are carefully balanced: "Some people are calling the energy crisis a hoax. Others say that at the rate we're using up our oil resources we'll be down to our last drop in our children's lifetime." The company then calls for an energy pian making use of all our energy resources. And here again, it calls on people to make up their own minds and to contact ineir elected representatives. Business is sometimes criticized for overselling its products. Is it now to be criticized for overselling democracy? The Kaiser commercial on red tace might be juagea sngnuy more nionated in that it uses fact to exprT criticism: "In 1S77, America spentj1" billion on federal paperwork alone ..!C1 in the end we all pay for it." Andy,'"3 who among us would disagree? ':rt American workers now giving back'f9 taxes almost half of everything thf earn, this is one issue where there rei ly is overwhelming agreement. eJ year we are transferring a gread share of our wealth, intellect at1, energy from the pursuit of progress'1 the satisfaction of bureaucratic fttJi quirements. ar I do not believe the networks are cahoots to prevent business from mailul ing an editorial case. But what jP0 astonishing was the apparent fear11 approving such mild messages. Feard8' whom? Of our own government Shades of King George! Kaiser said; ! was informed by one network that itf.15 commercials were rejected because10 the Fairness Doctrine. That's thedM trine administered by the FCC to insve-i 1 that television presents balanced oj 'nl nions. But as the company countered "We believe, too, that television shot!:1 present a fair balance of opinion. Evecr ours." jei Maybe it's time to take a closer loci??1 at the Fairness Doctrine. The way it ; being interpreted now hardly seer' fair. Indeed, I have to wonder, isiteve" constitutional? i ik |