Importance of First Amendment

Washington State

Supreme Court

I have occasionally ponÿdered what I would do if, in some brave new world, I was told that our nation could only have one of the protections afforded by first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, and that it was up to me to decide which it would be.

This would be the mother of all dilemmas, because each bill in the Bill of Rights was imporÿtant to our founders and the preservation of each has made America the great and unique country that it is. Although in making this choice I would be sorely tempted to favor preserÿvation of the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures; or the hallowed Fifth Amendment rights availÿable to defendants in criminal proceedings; I would have litÿtle hesitancy resolving the diÿlemma in favor of retaining the First Amendment.

Why the First Amendment? My first response is that the protections it provides are broad in that it forbids laws that establish a religion for us to observe as well as any that prohibit us from freely exercisÿing our religious views. The amendment also guarantees us freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble, and to petition our government for a redress of grievances. Finally, it guarantees a free press. The First Amendment, in short, protects many personal rights and, importantly, would proÿvide the best vehicle for seekÿing restoration of the other rights that we lost as a conseÿquence of my "Sophie's Choice."

Under the First Amendment, columnists, poliÿticians, and just plain citizens could speak, write, march, and protest in favor of a more just and civil society, one that afÿfords due process of law to everyone and does not allow the privacy of persons within its jurisdiction to be easily invaded.

Our founders were wise men and they knew that a free society was inconceivable without what the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called the "free trade in ideas" that finds protection in the First Amendment. In my view, the most effective place to market ideas is in the press, be it electronic or print. One can shout slogans from the highest mountain or march on the Capitol with a large sign in an effort to spread ideas, but those means of spreading the word are not nearly as effecÿtive as setting them forth in a newspaper, magazine, or on television or radio. Because this is such an effective venue for political and non-political speech, the press has a great responsibility to make certain that a wide range of ideas make it to the marketplace. It is, in the final analysis, the custodian of the free press provision in the First Amendment.

As such, the press has not only the right but an obligaÿtion to shine light on the inner workings of our public and private institutions. As citiÿzens, we can only be certain that the great institutions of our democracy are working the way our founders intended them to work if we are secure in the knowledge that we have a hardworking, independent, vigilant, and healthily skeptiÿcal (not cynical) press on the job.

Having said that, the press has an obligation to see that the provisions of the First Amendment have vitality, I must quickly add that as a public official it is not always comfortable to undergo scrutiÿny by the press. No one likes to read about their shortcomÿings or those of the institution that he or she serves. But as we learned as children, the truth sometimes hurts, and those of us in government service should not bemoan legitimate criticism from the press. Rathÿer, we should evaluate it and try to benefit from the critÿicism.

The press does what it is supposed to do in our free society: shine light on probÿlems within the society. The intersection of a vigilant press with an institution willing to objectively examine criticism, I believe, results in significant improvements to our system.

Long live the First Amendment.

Chief Justice Alexanÿder wrote this column to comÿmemorate National Newspaper Week.