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. Talkindog,
    I saw Chomsky, talking to a group of students getting their kicks at the Boston OWS party, say that Nixon was a liberal. And insisted it was true.
    The young ones laughed, not willing to hear that from him.

    Buchanan is an unknown to me like most crap of that sort
    .
    As to Nixon, who Buchanan supported, I prefer to use Mike S. reservation when speaking of Nazis:
    I would not trust him, even if he was a “pleasant person”.

    For me he’s always been tricky Dick. But he was more complex. He was a user of a anti-epilepticum for 20 years as a tranquilizer, which is documented. An interesting story in itself. And he avoided the chance to go against the previous Democrtic administrations and pull out of Viet Nam—although he had promised in his campaign to do so.

  2. Pat Buchanan was a writer for the Saint Louis Globe Democrat when I was a kid. He was milder then than he is now and yet earned his spurs and went forward because of his ultra conservative Catholic beliefs. When he got to the top he stayed with what got him there. I know he has a lot of Nixon stories to tell us and maybe now in his dotage and his retirement he will reveal some really good stuff.

  3. PS As for rebuttals to Buchanan or his ilk:
    Opinions are one-liners; factual rebuttal takes both time and thoughtful consideration. Who weighs most when air time is measured in viewer response?

  4. Nobody said Pat Buchanan could not say whatever he pleases. All MSNBC said was they were not going to pay him to say whatever he pleases. If you cannot understand the difference you should also not be paid for your ignorant opinion. No racist, no bigot, no anti-America conservative should be given a paid for by someone national platform to spew their hate…period.

  5. How nice and toasty it became since I commented earlier. #3?
    Wish I could comment all the good lines, but won’t.

    One comment only:
    The days of Holocaust Deniers are long gone.
    Agreed. If only it were true of open racists and religious hypocrites. Will we see that day?

    As for media, as Chomsky said, it is money that counts. Do you have any?
    Buy some in which case, or pick out one as a target for action, or write to get that law reinstated. Action!

  6. Dredd: you can add Phil Donahue to that list and his show was their highest rated evening program

    1. It is said that Hermann Goering was a merry old soul and Joseph Goebbels a loving father and husband. However, either one would had had me and my family murdered without a qualm. A friendly NAZI is fine I guess in Chris Matthews book, not in mine. The early 50’s might have been a great time for Buchanan, but the country ignored hateful racism and was only beginning to believe Jews didn’t have horns. I have eschewed friends due to their racism and so Chris’s feelings for Pat earn no kudo’s from me.

  8. Sorry about that video here’s the transcript:

    ”
    MATTHEWS: “Let Me Finish” tonight with Pat Buchanan. He`s leaving the network and won`t be working with us from now on. I miss him already.

    We`ve had drag down fights right here on this set and I`ve said things that drive him up a wall and he`s said things that have driven me up a wall. We`ve done it here in all, pretty good — in a pretty good spirit most of the time and have managed to be friendly and friends throughout it all.

    And, obviously, I`m going to miss his cheerful, fun-loving irascible presence around here.

    There are two aspects of Pat Buchanan I`d like to mention. One highly and wonderfully positive; the other — well, that`s the one that gets him into trouble.

    The good quality above his relentless genialities is deep even formidable loyalty. Pat sticks up for his people like nobody I know. He`ll laugh with you about the frailties and foibles of those he served but he never, ever quits being loyal to them.

    His most famous proof of loyalty was his strong defense of President Richard Nixon. At his moment of greatest vulnerability when so many others were running for the tree line, Pat Buchanan was out there in the open field with a national television cameras right on him.

    And here`s what he said to enemy and friend alike.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    PATRICK J. BUCHANAN: The president had conducted an administration for four years that had won the confidence or support of millions of Democrats. The president`s stand upon the issues of defense and welfare, upon taxes and government, upon coercive integration and bussing were closer to what the American people wanted than those of his opponents. But we want as well, Mr. Chairman, because of the quality and the character of our candidate. If one looks back over the political history of this country, there is only one other man other than Richard Nixon who has been his party`s nominee for president or vice president five times. That is Franklin Roosevelt.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    MATTHEWS: Well, that`s Pat testifying before the Senate Watergate committee in the fall of 1973, defending Nixon in his hour of peril. Using a sharp mind and wit to stand up for someone who placed his trust in him, young Pat Buchanan as a young man. Name another public figure who has built his public career on being a stalwart loyalist to Richard Nixon.

    Loyalty is the heart of Pat`s being. He is loyal to country, to church, to neighborhood to heritage. To Pat, the world can never be better than the one he grew up in as a young boy — Blessed Sacrament Church and Grade School, Gonzaga High School, Georgetown University. No country will ever be better than the United States of America of the early 1950s.

    It`s his deep loyalty to preserving that reality and all its cultural and ethnic aspects that has been his primal purpose and is what has gotten him into trouble. Not just now but over the years.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    BUCHANAN: And as those boys took back the streets of Los Angeles block by block, my friends, we must take back our cities and take back our culture and take back our country!

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    MATTHEWS: Well, that`s Pat Buchanan at the 1992 Republican National Convention and he`s never changed. It`s Pat Buchanan yesterday, today and tomorrow.

    But for all kinds of reasons, personal and professional, I will miss him.
    ”
    And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.”

  14. I don’t see the First Amendment issue here. Buchanan has a right to speak freely but that right doesn’t extend to speak freely on TV.

    I agree that MSNBC should present multiple sides of an issue from reasonable analysts and Buchanan lacks that trait. It’s getting to be near impossible to find reasonableness on the Right.

  15. OS,
    Anything that brings out all the facts and all opinions, I am in favor of. As Justice Douglas suggested in the Terminello decision, we need speech that stirs us to action.

  16. and raff….. you are a good man defending a person that would revile in your same rights being severed….. you sure you’ve never worked at the ACLU?

  17. Disco,
    I am not suggesting MSNBC has to keep him employed. I am suggesting that they need a balance and they need to challenge all speakers in order to get all of the facts in front of their audience.
    I will echo Bob’s thanks to anon nurse for the Slate article. Bob, I had trouble with the video as well. I only got the audio.

  18. raff, I do not see this as a First Amendment issue. I read a lot of blogs as well, and when a user is hide rated, suspended or banned, there is, invariably, a lot of First Amendment claims and hand-wringing. The First Amendment freedom of speech applies to public speech, such as the soapbox in the park. News corporations and blogs alike are owned by their owners and there is no free speech requirement.

    Back before the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 was repealed, users of public airwaves had to be truly fair and balanced, and it was not just a slogan–it was the law. I know; I worked my way through college as a radio announcer and on-air personality. But even then, the Fairness Doctrine would not have applied to cable outlets which do NOT use the public airwaves.

    Before the Fairness Doctrine of 1949, there was the Equal Time Rule of 1934 (47 USC § 315), which applied only to political candidates.

    Ronald Reagan dismantled the whole thing, and the result is what we have now. A poll recently indicated the public, by an overwhelming majority, wanted it back. Legislation was introduced in 2009 to bring it back but was blocked by conservative groups. The Associated Press reported that the final vote killing the Fairness Doctrine rider was:

    “In part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.”

  19. rafflaw,

    I thought MSNBC should have gotten rid of this bigot, racist, anti-Semite long ago.

    I believe there are more reasonable conservatives that should be given a chance to express their opinions on air. It’s about time we the public heard from more moderate conservatives and Republicans. They are out there–but they are being drowned out by the wing-nuts.

  20. “However, if MSNBC does not want to become the Fox News of the Left, shouldn’t all voices be heard? ”

    Sorry Raff and Gene but I totally disagree with your take on this. To put it in the starkest terms possible Pat Buchanan is only slightly to the left of Adolph Hitler and that might be because he is smart enough not to let his innermost feelings show. Having him on the air lends credence to his viewpoint by making his opinions seem mainstream. He skates the thin lie between outright racism/bigotry well enough that it is hard to catch him as being overtly hateful, but he has damned well mastered all the “code” words of bigotry.

    Secondly, we have been exposed in the last four decades to the 1% dominating all media and due to that been subjected to enormous amounts of propaganda filtered through the mainstream media. MSNBC has found a niche position for making more of the Left’s position public and as such has served to assist i rallying people to the cause, however, its owners too are corporate and as Dredd pointed out keep a tight rein on their on-air talent lest they expose too much of the truth.

    Finally, Buchanan has no right of free speech to be on the air. He can still speak his mind and will no doubt have forums to do so. We have watched for years as media has allowed false equivalency’s to be drawn into political discussion (i.e. creationism/evolution). Buchanan’s presence draws in the false equivalency that he is a responsible political spokesman. His career has always been as a Joseph Goebbels clone and his legitimization has created almost as much danger as his forebear.

Comments are closed.