Post 9/11 Regional Attitudes Towards the First Amendment

A. Overview. The United States Constitution's First Amendment, ratified in 1791, guarantees the American citizen that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to the petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The American people's familiarity and understanding of this amendment has changed over time.

In 1997, the First Amendment Center, an organization that gathers information and educational resources about the First Amendment, began conducting surveys to assess American opinions on the First Amendment. The survey has been conducted every year since (except 1998) and documents how attitudes have or have not changed in regards to freedom of religion, speech, press, ..etc. The surveys also show how well-informed Americans are of their First Amendment rights, and offers specific examples of the extent of freedom Americans support.

Since the terror attacks of 9/11, there has been much discussion across America of many of the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. Some of the news headlines in the past few years focused on the controversy surrounding the wearing of head scarves as a symbol of religion, the concerns over too much freedom of the press in coverage of military operations, the concerns over too much federal and executive government power resulting from the Patriot Act, and the concerns that unrestricted wire-tapping would limit freedom of speech.

This study looks at if and how American attitudes towards the First Amendment have changed since the 9/11 terror attacks.

B. Literature Review.

(1) The State of the First Amendment Reports from 1997 -2006, each provide a good summary and analysis of the surveys themselves. The reports include an introductions which are slanted in favor of expanding First Amendment rights. This slant is in keeping with the mission of the First Amendment Center and does not take away from the survey data itself. The analysis accompanying each report is helpful, because it puts the data in context with the current events in the US at the time of the survey. For example, in 2001, there was an increase in the percentage of Americans who believed that the American media had too much freedom. This survey was conducted a few months after the 2000 Presidential Election, during which many Americans perceived that the media tainted election results by "predicting" winners.

The 2002 survey on the State of the First Amendment , conducted in June and July of 2002, was the first opportunity to survey American attitudes towards the First Amendment after the attacks of 9/11 and after our nation's initial attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. The survey foreword identifies that "for the first time..., almost half of those surveyed said that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. About 49% said the First Amendment gives us too much freedom, up from 39% [in 2001] and 22% in 2000." (Paulson, 2002, p.2) One section of the survey analysis identifies that "the public was willing to accept significant qualifications of its First Amendment liberties during wartime. More than four in 10 rejected the right of newspapers to freely criticize the U.S. military..." (2002, p. 11)

This information made me curious about how the attacks of 9/11 and the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq influenced American attitudes towards the First Amendment. Further research below shows how First Amendment rights have been influenced legally and culturally since 9/11.

(2) The North Carolina School of Law publishes a First Amendment Law Review which in 2005 and 2006 included three articles which address the First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, and the Freedom of Assembly. While these articles do not directly address American attitudes on the First Amendment, they do provide insight into how the Global War on Terror has impacted First Amendment Rights.

• Freedom of Religion is discussed in the Spring 2006 issue of the First Amendment Law Review. This case focuses on the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment, by identifying that North Carolina courts have essentially established Christianity as an official religion, when they denied a Muslim the opportunity to swear in on the Koran. This article by Daniel Blau recommends that North Carolina courts reevaluate their swearing-in policies, because "for a witness who commands the attention of the judge, court officials, parties to the litigation, the general public, and ... a jury of his or her peers, the social pressure to swear a religious oath may be overwhelming." (Blau, 2006, p. 14) This pressure may cause some to swear a religious oath when they would rather affirm, or may bring a prejudice against them for swearing on a religious text that is not the Christian Bible.
• Freedom of the Press is discussed in the Spring 2005 issue of the First Amendment Law Review. The article's author, Jeffrey Koweek presents the argument that while the press typically has access to court proceedings, "First Amendment Rights can be temporarily restricted by national security interests". (Koweek, 2005, p.12)
• The Right to Assemble is discussed in the Spring 2005 Review by Nicole Winnett, who presents arguments that "in this post September 11th world, ... law enforcement departments have prevented protestors from fully participating and engaging in the political demonstration process". (Winnett, 2005, para. 8)

(3) Two additional sources address the idea of "freedoms as possible obstacles to the war on terrorism" (Paulson, 2002, p.2).

• The 2004 Congressional Quarterly published an article called "A Little Less Sunshine" by Michele Mariani. This article discusses how local, state, and federal governments have adapted local laws with expanded exemptions to the 1966 Freedom of Information Act in order to protect significant resources from easy attack in 2001, 2002, and 2003. This is a balanced article that also discusses limitations that have been placed on these exemptions by federal and local governments since the 9/11 attacks.
• The second article was published in the 2005 Library Quarterly by Paul T. Jaeger and Gary Burnett. Their article discusses the way the 9/11 has changed the ways that information is exchanged both socially and politically. This article also provides a history of the freedom of information in the United States during periods of war and/or heightened tensions, beginning with the Civil War, the World Wars, and the Cold War.

None of the sources listed above focused on any regional changes regarding First Amendment rights in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. I am in the military and was stationed overseas at the time of the attacks. From my perspective across the Atlantic Ocean, the northeast bore the brunt of the attacks, although the scale of the attacks certainly resonated with the entire country and the world (my German neighbors were in tears and in shock, and the outpouring of support from the German community was touching). I am curious that if "the public is willing to accept significant qualifications of its First Amendment liberties during wartime" (2002, p.11), are they more likely to accept these qualifications if they were more directly affected by the 9/11 attacks that precipitated the war?

C. Research Question.

Is there a relationship between the respondents who believe that the First Amendment goes too far and the those that believe that newspapers should not be able to freely criticize the US military and the region the respondent is from?

Prior to the data analysis that follows, I suspect that there will be a positive correlation between the the question "Does the First Amendment go to far" and "should newspapers be allowed to criticize the military", and that the correlation will be greater in respondents from the northeast region.

D. Sources of Data.The sources of data for this research project come from the Cultural Policy and the Arts National Data Archive (CPANDA) State of the First Amendment Datasets from 1997 - 2005 The survey was conducted telephonically from 12 June to 5 July 2002 on more than 1000 randomly selected households. The survey had many questions similar to previous years' State of the First Amendment Surveys, but included new questions to assess public attitudes towards First Amendment rights in relation to current issues in the media, courts, government, and culture.

E. Summary of Statistical Procedure. For this project I used a comparison of correlations to determine the strength of the relationship between the following variables:

• Q2 - "The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees", with responses ranging from 1-99, 1= strongly agree, 2= mildly agree, 3 = mildly disagree, 4 = strongly disagree, 99 = don't know/refused to answer.
• Q22 - "Newspapers should be allowed to freely criticize the U.S. military about its strategy and performance", with responses ranging from 1-99, 1= strongly agree, 2= mildly agree, 3 = mildly disagree, 4 = strongly disagree, 98 = don't know, 99 = refused to answer.

F. Findings.

G. Explanation of the Findings.

In three regions, a weak positive correlation exists between the responses on whether the First Amendment goes too far and whether newspapers should be allowed to freely criticize the military. Interestingly, the Midwest region had the strongest correlation of the three, followed by the Northeast region. The West had a very weak negative correlation.

What is also interesting about the positive correlations, is that a respondent who believes that the First Amendment goes too far, is more likely to agree that newspapers should be allowed to freely criticize the military. One would normally expect that someone who thinks the First Amendment has gone too far in the rights it guarantees would also think that the freedom of the press to criticize the military should be curtailed.

H. Discussion of Findings in Context of Research Literature.

The above study is a very limited example in relation to the broad statement made by the the Executive Director of the First Amendment Center that the "2002 survey suggests that many Americans view these fundamental freedoms as possible obstacles to the war on terrorism" (Paulson, 2002, p.2). However, less than one year after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and in the midst of a major military operation in Afghanistan, close to half of those interviewed agreed on some level that the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees, and 42% disagreed that newspapers should be able to freely criticize the military. (2002, p. 28) Although weak, the strength of the correlation in the Midwest region compared to the other regional correlations suggests further research into what makes this region's respondents different. there may be some value in conducting further research into regional responses and how these responses may or may not change over time. This further research could be important to understanding where First Amendment educational resources should be concentrated, or perhaps even as a predictor of region's where a violation of First Amendment rights may be more likely to occur.

References.

• Blau, Daniel (2006). Holy Scriptures and Unholy Strictures: Why the Enforcement of a Religious Orthodoxy in North Carolina Demands a More Refined Establishment Clause Analysis of Courtroom Oaths. First Amendment Law Review, Spring 2006 Retrieved 27 November from the LexisNexis Academic Database.
• Haynes, Charles (2004). Freedom Takes Strong Stomachs, but Many of Us have Indegestion: Inside the First Amendment. Retrieved 27 November from First Amendment Center.
• Hudson, David L. (2002) The First Amendment: A Wartime Casualty? Retrieved 4 December from First Amendment Center.
• Jaeger, P. and Burnett, G. (2005) Information Access and Exchange Among Small Worlds in a Democratic Society: The Role of Policy in Shaping Information Behavior in the Post-9/11 United States. The Library Quarterly, Vol 75, 2005, p. 464-495 Retrieved 27 November from the LexisNexis Academic Database.
• Koweek, Jeffrey S. (2005). Enemy Combatant Status Hearings: Predicting the Right of Access by the Press and Public. First Amendment Law Review, Spring 2005 Retrieved 27 November from the LexisNexis Academic Database.
• Mariani, Michele (2004). A Little Less Sunshine. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. DBA Governing Magazine, June 2004. Retrieved 27 November from the LexisNexis Academic Database.
• Paulson, Kenneth (2002). We Lose Sight of Our Rights When Freedom and Fear Collide. State of the First Amendment Survey 2002. Retrieved 27 November from First Amendment Center.
• State of the First Amendment Survey 2002. Retrieved 27 November from First Amendment Center.
• Winnett, Nicole C. (2005). Don't Fence Us In: A First Amendment Right to Freedom of Assembly and Speech. First Amendment Law Review, Spring 2005 Retrieved 27 November from the LexisNexis Academic Database.