As censorship in Iran continues to increase, more journalists are being detained, tortured, and sentenced to long prison terms and in some potential cases, execution. According to a report released by the Committee to Protect Journalists, Iran has hit a new high in the detainment of journalists. There are now 52 journalists in jail, making Iran the top jailer of press in the world. China comes in second place with imprisoning 24 journalists and Cuba follows closely behind with 22.
In response to this crackdown on free press, at least a hundred journalists have fled the country and at least 80 are in hiding in Turkey. This has led those journalists who are still reporting from Iran to go underground, a sort of “guerilla journalism” as characterized by Reza Valizadeh, who used to work for the state run television and radio. Journalists are now writing under pseudonyms and communicate information without revealing their identity to media outlets outside of Iran. Despite facing charges of “propagation against the regime,” insulting authorities, disrupting order and even heresy that if convicted carry the death penalty, journalists continue to speak out on the atrocities committed by the country’s regime. The belief among those brave enough to continue the fight is that Iran has “entered a state of permanent media repression, a situation that is not only appalling but also untenable…The Iranian government will eventually lose the war against information.” This optimism, however, is not without sacrifice. Each day another journalist is arrested the regime becomes more brutal in its tactics to suppress Iranian freedoms.
It is highly regrettable that the Obama administration was so late in its condemnation of the human rights abuses during and after the June 12, 2009 elections. More so, it is even more appalling that no action has been taken to defend those risking their lives in the name of free speech and governmental reform. The United States must condemn and expose the Iranian government on abuse of human rights and isolate the regime from the international community. Standing silent will only make the people of Iran resent the United States.
What a difference a question makes. A couple of weeks ago, we exposed the biased and misleading questions behind a widely-cited Washington Post poll, which supposedly found broad, bipartisan support for legislative limits on speech following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Citizens United case. The Center for Competitive Politics, however, has now released a poll with dramatically different findings.
Based on much more accurate and objective questions, the Center’s findings reiterate our call for caution on the part of lawmakers, who appear ready to rush through legislative measures that would curtail the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association.
The greatest virtue of the Center’s poll is its correct representation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. The survey began by explaining to those polled that:
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that incorporated entities—businesses, unions, and nonprofit advocacy groups—have a First Amendment right to spend money from their general treasuries to fund independent advertisements urging people to vote for or against candidates for public office.
This accurately represents the decision, which merely removed the ban on corporate independent political expenditures.
Tellingly, when presented with an accurate description of the decision, respondents to the Center’s poll indicated the complete opposite of respondents to the Washington Post poll. For instance, 51.2% of respondents disagreed with the government’s position that it could ban Citizens United from airing ads promoting Hillary: The Movie, or that the government could prevent Citizens United from making the movie available on a pay-per-view basis.
Moreover, 63% opposed the idea that “the government should have the power to limit how much some people speak about politics in order to enhance the voices of others.” And four hypothetical questions about “independent political expenditures by a teachers union, a trade association, an environmental nonprofit, and restaurants” found that a “plurality … supported the First Amendment right” of these organizations to make independent political expenditures.
Such results call into question the Washington Post’s contention that “Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose” the Citizens United decision, and that a “strong reservoir of bipartisan support” exists for legislative curtailment of the decision. Indeed, the Center’s poll found that only 14.2% thought that McCain-Feingold had successfully reduced the influence of special interests on federal elections, with 44.2% rejecting the proposition. The Center’s data shows that Americans believe in their uninhibited rights to political free speech, and would reject any attempt to again restrict these freedoms.
Andrew Odell currently is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm