PRECIOUS PROTECTIONS IN PERIL.

Byline: Nadine Strossen 

OUR precious First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and religious liberty, are currently facing serious threats from all directions - from every government body, in all parts of the country, and across the political spectrum.

As a nonpartisan organization, the American Civil Liberties Union defends all fundamental freedoms, including First Amendment rights, for everyone - even those who oppose our civil liberties positions. In contrast, most people have a more selective adherence to civil liberties.

Accordingly, politicians regularly support measures to suppress speech and ideas that they dislike. For example, many liberals want to restrict freedom of expression for commercial advertising or corporate lobbying. And many conservatives want to repress expression that undermines ``traditional family values.''

Let me list just a small sample of the many current attacks on our First Amendment rights:

Restrictions on cyber-communications, ranging from state criminal laws to public libraries' use of blocking software.

The Supreme Court's recent decisions gutting the free exercise of religion.

Limits on violent and other controversial content on TV.

Dangerously overbroad ``child pornography'' laws criminalizing images that appear to depict anyone under 18, even if no actual minor was involved.

``SLAPP suits'' (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), which deter people from criticizing government action.

Lobbying and campaign-finance ``reform'' laws that limit individuals' rights to petition their government, and to advocate candidates and causes.

Restrictions on cameras in the courtroom, including the complete exclusion of cameras from all federal courts.

Restrictions on encryption technology, which deter all sensitive online communications, from private e-mail messages to confidential commercial negotiations.

Persecution of lesbians and gay men in the military for discussing their sexual orientation.

Federal officials' threats to destroy the careers of doctors in California and Arizona who give their patients information about possible medical uses of marijuana, as authorized by recently adopted voter initiatives in their states.

Restrictions on advertising certain lawful but controversial products, such as alcohol and tobacco.

Fortunately, our courts have repaired much of the First Amendment damage done by other government officials. For example, almost every member of Congress voted for the Clinton-backed Communications Decency Act, which would have imposed a straitjacket of censorship on cybercommunications. In stark contrast, all 15 judges who ruled on the CDA - including the entire U.S. Supreme Court - held in Reno vs. ACLU that it violates the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, though, we cannot count on the courts continuing to provide a First Amendment safety net. Many politicians recently have stepped up their dangerous assaults on the independence of the judiciary, which is essential for the vigorous enforcement of constitutional rights.

They have been supported by influential citizens groups and individuals, including former Attorney General Edwin Meese, in pressing for legislation that would endanger judicial independence, which Chief Justice William Rehnquist has hailed as ``one of the crown jewels'' of our governmental system.

Such legislation would undermine all constitutional rights, including First Amendment freedoms. Indeed, advocates of these dangerous measures have cited Reno vs. ACLU as an example of the ``judicial activism'' they seek to curb, rather than as an example of fidelity to the First Amendment, which too many elected officials have abandoned.

Two measures now pending in Congress would completely divest all courts of all power to enforce two core First Amendment freedoms by amending that precious provision outright.

The first proposed constitutional amendment would criminalize ``flag desecration.'' As the Supreme Court explained, in its landmark decisions that struck down anti-flag burning laws, what is at stake is ``the bedrock principle'' of our country's proud free speech tradition: that government may never suppress expression because the majority of the community is offended by the ideas it conveys.

The second threatened revision to the First Amendment would break down what Thomas Jefferson called the ``wall of separation'' between government and religion by allowing government-sponsored religious exercises, including prayers in public schools. This would equally imperil both the sacred nature of religion and the secular nature of government.

A prominent First Amendment scholar once observed: ``Ultimately, the people will have just as much freedom of speech as they want.'' Accordingly, the ultimate challenge for First Amendment advocates is to galvanize public understanding and support of these precious freedoms. The present published exchange, as well as the upcoming debate at Soka University, are welcome responses to that challenge.