Constitutional Law, Courts, Free Speech, Justice, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

The First Amendment Versus Pat Buchanan?

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

I am the last person that should be defending Pat Buchanan and objecting to his recent termination as a political analyst for MSNBC.  However, after thinking about it for a while, I have come to the conclusion that Uncle Pat’s firing is an attack on Free Speech and a continuation of the Fox News type mentality on our cable news stations.  Let me first make it clear that most of what Buchanan says on the air is offensive and in some cases, outright disgusting.  However, if we cannot say what is on our mind without limits, do any of us really have the freedom to speak our minds? Mr. Buchanan is known for his outrageous statements and a recent Think Progress article outlined his top ten most outrageous comments.

I apologize in advance for the length of the quotes, but I believe it is important that everyone understand what he has said that may have caused his termination.  “Here is a look back at 10 of the most offensive and outrageous statements made by Pat Buchanan:

1. Wanted to close the borders to protect white dominance. As he wrote in his 2006 book State of Emergency: “If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built.”

2. Blamed lower test scores on minorities. In his most recent book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, he blames minorities for dragging down the country’s test scores. “[T]he decline in academic test scores here at home and in international competition is likely to continue, as more and more of the children taking those tests will be African-American and Hispanic.

3. Claimed Jerry Sandusky’s atrocities are because of “Homosexual marriage.” Buchanan appeared on a right-wing radio show on November 15 to make some convoluted comparisons: “Let’s take this Penn State thing…these horrors, there’s an organization that marches in the gay pride parade in New York called—used to—called the North American Man Boy Love Association, which advocated voluntary sex along the lines of exactly what was going on at Penn State. Many of our political icons have marched in that parade right behind that NAMBLA float […] This is now, homosexual marriage is now the civil rights cause of the decade.”

4. Said the Jewish population in the United States dropped in the 90s because Jews aborted all their babies. Buchanan explains that the decline in the American Jewish population during the 1990s (a decline that a Brandeis study says never occurred), “is a result of the collective decision of Jews themselves. From Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem in the 1970s to Ruth Bader Ginsburg today, Jewish women have led the battle for abortion rights. The community followed.”

5. Asserted Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people including 69 teens in Norway, “may have been right.” Buchanan called Breivik a coward, evil, and cold-blooded, and then proceeded to defend his twisted rationale for the killings: “As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.”

6. Claimed that all great nations punish the gays. In a Human Events column, Buchanan attacked California’s 9th Circuit Judge Vaughn Walker after his ruling of Proposition 8 as unconstitutional as a “judicial tyrant,” before going on to explain that “through history, all the great religions have condemned homosexuality and all the great nations have proscribed or punished it. None ever placed homosexual liaisons on the same plane as traditional marriage, which is the bedrock institution of any healthy society.

7. Penned “The Affirmative Action Nobel.” That’s the title of Buchanan’s October 13, 2009 column on Townhall.com in which he claims that President Obama’s Nobel Prize was simply the result of affirmative action. And the column only got worse from there: “They have reinforced the impression that Obama is someone who is forever being given prizes — Ivy League scholarships, law review editorships, prime-time speaking slots at national conventions — he did not earn.”

8. Argued that Poland and the United Kingdom had it coming in World War II. Buchanan seems to suggest in a 2009 column that World War II—and all the atrocities that accompanied it—was really the fault of Poland and Britain, for refusing to engage in diplomacy with Germany. “Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britainand her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.”

9. Dabbled in Holocaust denial. Pat Buchanan danced alarmingly close to denying key facts of the Holocaust. In a 1990 column for the New York Post, he defended convicted Nazi war criminal Ivan Demjanjuk (whom he later compared to Jesus Christ) against charges from Holocaust survivors that he was guilty of murder by accusing the survivors of misremembering all of it: “This so-called ‘Holocaust Survivor Syndrome’ involves ‘group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.’ Reportedly, half of the 20,000 survivor testimonies in Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem are considered ‘unreliable,’ not to be used in trials[…]The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody.”

10. Argued Hitler was an individual of “great courage.” That’s just one of the quotes that the Anti-Defamation League attributes to Buchanan in their compendium of offensive remarks from Buchanan over the years. In 1977, he qualified his labeling of Hitler as racist and anti-semitic by adding that “he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him[…]His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.”  Think Progress

It is obvious to this author that Mr. Buchanan’s statements are indeed outrageous and in most cases, not supported by facts.  However, if MSNBC does not want to become the Fox News of the Left, shouldn’t all voices be heard?  If we do not allow people to speak because we do not like what they say, how will the country ever debate the important issues that confront us?

Let me make it clear that MSNBC has the right to hire and fire whomever they want and Mr. Buchanan has the right to look for work at any news outlet or cable station, subject to whatever contractual obligations the parties have agreed to as well as any applicable state or Federal employee laws.   However, is MSNBC a better cable news station because of the termination of Mr. Buchanan?  I submit that they are less of a true news organization because of the firing.

What should MSNBC have done to serve the public interest and protect the free discussion of all ideas?  Couldn’t they provide their own on-air fact checker whose job is to report on the alleged facts any speaker has just submitted to the viewers?  Wouldn’t that provide the public with the free flow of information and allow the viewer to hear whose ideas they like and support after receiving both sides of an issue and the real facts surrounding those ideas?

Justice William O. Douglas said it best in the Terminiello v. Chicago decision, “Accordingly, a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp. 315 U. S. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.”  Justia

What do you think MSNBC should have done about Pat Buchanan’s statements and writings?  How can any news organization protect the free flow of information to the public while at the same time providing factual information on those subjects?  Let’s hear your thoughts.

69 thoughts on “The First Amendment Versus Pat Buchanan?”

  1. anon nurse,

    Thank you for the Slate article.

    I tried playing the Chris Matthews video but it’s been ‘loading’ for the past 20 minutes and played three commercials only. I feel like I’ve been transported back to 1997 and I’m waiting for Real Player to buffer.

  2. Rafflaw,

    I think you are confusing presenting one side of the issue with just absurdity. Are we really entertaining Holocaust deniers and the like in 2012? If you want to have a reasonable discussion on the effects of global warming and what is causing it that is one thing, despite my own personal beliefs one could argue there is still some “grey area” open to debate, but Pat is usually so far beyond that point that you can’t even see the line in the rearview mirror.

    Its not a first amendment issue. No one is shutting him up. He can blog his crazyness all he wants. He has a platform. He has a soap box. It isn’t MSNBC’s obligation to pay him to be an a**hole.

  3. This was a purely business decision. If MSNBC didn’t want Buchanan representing them as one of their analysts, then they fire him. I don’t even see a hint of some journalistic integrity need to do anything else.

  4. http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/09/pat_buchanan_vs_msnbc_controversial_book_causing_tension.html

    Excerpt from the above link:

    Pat Buchanan might not be coming back to MSNBC after finishing his tour for a book that laments the perceived loss of a more racially and religiously homogeneous America.

    Many groups have taken issue with the premise of Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, particularly the content of one chapter titled “The End of White America” (borrowed from an Atlantic article, which Buchanan cites), for racial and religious bigotry.

    Buchanan, who serves as a conservative political analyst for the 24-hour news network, has been off the air since October. Over the weekend, Deadline Hollywood asked MSNBC president Phil Griffin to shed light on Buchanan’s employment status at the network. Griffin stopped short of making anything official but said that the ideas put forth in the book are not “appropriate for the national dialogue, much less MSNBC.” Griffin continued: “Pat’s a good guy. He didn’t like [being removed from the air], but he understood.”

    Griffin made similar comments to other media outlets in recent days. “Pat and I are going to meet soon and a decision will be made,” he told the New York Times, adding that while Buchanan is a “good guy” some of his ideas “are alarming.” (end of excerpt)

  5. “What was Pat Buchanan fired for specifically?” -Bob, Esq.

    I’m not sure, but this is one take:

    “Pat Buchanan Out at MSNBC”

    “The conservative pundit’s newest book caused the end of an unusual partnership between him and the liberal-leaning network.”

    By Abby Ohlheiser and Josh Voorhees
    Friday, Feb. 17, 2012, at 10:59 AM ET

    http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/09/pat_buchanan_vs_msnbc_controversial_book_causing_tension.html

  11. Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, Cenk Uygar, and now Pat Buchanan.

    That is three to one.

    Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin would tie the score.

  12. You hinted at it a bit, with Pat presenting his opinions as facts. There becomes a certain point where they aren’t even grounded in reality and don’t even constitute analysis, let a lone provide the facts or forum for REASONABLE debate that a legitimate news operation is supposed to provide. Pat getting fired is less a first amendment issue to me then it is that he didn’t do what he was hired to do. That said, they should also fire whoever hired him because a cursory glance at his resume and body of work would show that he is incapable of performing what he was hired to do.

  13. I could not possibly disagree with you more. In a perfect world your words might make sense, but this is not a perfect world and the intellects of the left are systematically denied mic time on these shows.

    In a world where Noam Chomsky cannot even get Public TV time, what justification is there for the redundant presence of Mr. Buchanan when all the political talk shows feature a wide assortment of neocons and right wing extremists as regular fare and racist/sexist commentary is far from unknown. What Buchanan is selling has not been driven from the airwaves, and I’m sure his replacement will be just as odious if a bit more diplomatic in their expressions of bigotry.

    Growing up, Buchanan and his brothers made a religion out of beating up Jewish kids after school. His intolerant bellicosity has diminished only as regards the use of his fists. MSNBC is well quit of him.

  14. No one prevented Buchanan from publishing his book. No one has been prevented from buying and reading it. His Freedom of Speech rights are perfectly intact. This freedom does not guarantee him a job at MSNBC or any other place, however. This is the vaunted free market at work.

  15. He should have been fired years ago. Let all the seriously crazy people pool their money and buy their own station and broadcast their slime 24 hours a day. (Ummm? Maybe he should apply at Fox?) Let him stand on the corner of State and Madison. Let him rant in front of the White House. Let him stand in front of the Supreme Court. He can lecture wherever he wants. Let him pass out leaflets at the National Cathedral. And if he gets arrested, let JT defend him. But why the hell should MSNBC be expected to pay him?

  17. raff,

    I really hate to say this, but I have to agree. It is Pat’s right to be a hateful idiot bigot and to put his feet in his mouth all the way up to the knees should he so desire.

    “However, is MSNBC a better cable news station because of the termination of Mr. Buchanan? I submit that they are less of a true news organization because of the firing.”

    1) I agree with the statement about lessening MSNBC’s stature as a true news organization.

    “What should MSNBC have done to serve the public interest and protect the free discussion of all ideas? Couldn’t they provide their own on-air fact checker whose job is to report on the alleged facts any speaker has just submitted to the viewers? Wouldn’t that provide the public with the free flow of information and allow the viewer to hear whose ideas they like and support after receiving both sides of an issue and the real facts surrounding those ideas?”

    2) A better news organization would have done exactly that: made Pat look like even more of an idiot by fact checking those statements of his that were capable of fact checking. Some of what he said though was close to pure opinion. Particularly about white dominance and Breveik. You could counter those statements with contravening opinion and facts to a point, but fact checking them alone isn’t as practical a solution.

    “What do you think MSNBC should have done about Pat Buchanan’s statements and writings? How can any news organization protect the free flow of information to the public while at the same time providing factual information on those subjects?”

    3) First of all, they should have realized what kind of scumbag they were getting into bed with when they hired him. It’s not like Pat is an unknown quality in the world of punditry. Given that they didn’t or didn’t care, they should have debunked facts and countered with opinion that highlighted the bigotry and racism of Pat’s statements and their inherent wrongness – publicly, thoroughly and viciously – allowed him time for rebuttal, closed . . . and then fired him.

    But not for 1st Amendment reasons.

    Rather I’d fire him for employment law reasons. Pat sounds like a walking EEOC complaint waiting to happen and in an abundance of caution, I’d have advised firing him to avoid potential legal liability created by his caveman sensibilities causing a hostile work environment. I’m not sad about Pat being off the air. He’s scum. Always has been and at his age the chance of rehabilitation are slim to none. But yeah, MSNBC could have handled getting rid of him in a much better way as to provide both balance to the issue(s), to illustrate the ridiculous nature of Pat’s comments and educate about the inherent dangers of such ideas.

  18. You said it best in this sentence: “Let me make it clear that MSNBC has the right to hire and fire whomever they want and Mr. Buchanan has the right to look for work at any news outlet or cable station, subject to whatever contractual obligations the parties have agreed to as well as any applicable state or Federal employee laws.”
    In a simple world the news would bring us just the facts. But the “News” is brought to us by the corporations that own them. They are not “news” they are at it’s best “Infotainment” or “Propaganda”. Until the fourth estate becomes the fourth estate again does it matter if Uncle Pat got booted or not? The conversation goes where the owners of the information want it to go. The thing that kills me is when someone like Pat gets called out for living in the 19th century he starts crying about the 1st. Knowing full well that he has no leg to stand on when he invokes such hogwash. His cries are just a dog whistle which I am sure that the likes of Palin and Dr. Laura hear very well!

  19. “And then they came to take Pat Buch…….

    And I said, thank god. For selling opinions as facts (he did not say here’s a few opinions for you folks, take ’em or leave ’em) is untenable for a SERIOUS media channel. And saying that, am not endorsing MSNBC in anyway.

  20. Most news organizations have used any crackpot they can find, so they can claim fairness based on showing the “opposing” viewpoint. As a gay guy, I see this all the time. They will let some organization that claims most of the child molestors are gay and other such flat out lies go on the air, so they can show they are “fair”. Having a thorough discussion of any subject does not have to include people who base their discussions on lies. Pat Buchanan has misrepresented so many things and continues to do so.

    I guess my questions is, “is having a serial liar given a platform to lie and get paid for it the only way to have a serious discussion?”.

Comments are closed.