By Ian McNab
Staff Writer
Sitting in an overcrowded lecture hall, unable to pry me eyes away from the endless entertainment of other people’s laptop screens and fighting to stay warm thanks to the excessive misuse of the air conditioning system, I’ve seemingly found myself in another depressing display at attempted education.
Only this time, the laptop junkies aren’t wearing designer t-shirts and tight jeans. Instead, they are all clean cut, business-suit-wearing, blatantly balding older men and women pretending to listen attentively to the full day of guest speakers at the 2008 Pepperdine Law Review Symposium entitled “Free Speech and Press in the Modern Age.”
Some of the biggest names from the world of law convened in the Pepperdine Law School to discuss the pertinent issues of free speech in ever-maddening world of the 21st century. Unfortunately for those who planned on being engaged in the day’s speeches, the monotonous line of aging white males was only scarcely broken up by truly riveting and informational discussions.
The day-long event included speeches by Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski, and the head of the Federal Communications Commission, Kevin J. Martin.
The first full panel of the day centered on the topic of “Regulation of Extremist Speech in the Era of Mass Communication.” Each speech seemed far too over-prepared, but more importantly, they were all very broad. And with the short amount of time each speaker was allotted, they were rarely able to delve to the proper depths that these issues require.
I was left to my vices and couldn’t help but to start counting how many liver spots I could find on the hairless heads in front of me. I snapped out of it and was able to pay attention long enough to hear Rodney Smolla, Dean of Washington and Lee Law School, misquote one of the most recognized lines in cinematic history when he spat out, “Luke…I am your son.”
Given I might have missed the context of the joke, by the utter confusion that enveloped the crowd I can only assume that Dean Smolla was as off the mark as I thought him to be.
Finally, after two hours of what seemed like a trip to the Petroleum Club, a gust of fresh air came to the podium in the form of Nadine Strossen, President of the American Civil Liberties Union. She took hold of the podium and started shooting from the hip, commenting on the some of the dire situations that have come about for those trying to protect free speech in a post 9/11 America.
She talked in great detail about the problems that journalists now face, of how the government has limited the Freedom of Information Act, how violently the government goes after it’s own employees who might leak information to journalists, and, in turn, subpoenaing journalists in order uncover their sources.
These are all crucial topics to the continuation of our free country. She talked about how many of the top investigative journalists she knows have stopped using all forms of electronic communication in fear of incessant snooping of the National Security Agency.
“Our government has opened up so much as to what they could consider detrimental or terrorist activity that they can construe anything they want in order to keep silent the people they feel are a potential harm to their own personal and financial security,” said Strossen.
As the day continued, I noticed the lack of undergraduate students at the conference.
This wasn’t that shocking of a revelation, but it wasn’t until later that day when discussing this with Seaver College undergraduates, did I realiz how uninformed the undergraduate campus was on this event. Not a single student I spoke to, not even a single faculty member, was aware that this was taking place on our campus.
Obviously there is some separation between the Law School and Seaver and although at almost every moment it doesn’t seem as such, this is indeed a college campus. And nothing should be more pertinent to the student body of a college campus than the idea of free speech.
Perhaps I romanticize too much what a college campus should be like. Long gone are the days of a campus being the forefront of open-minded experimentation. Even when our country is in a time of war you will not find slightest of voices being raised.
No longer will you find efforts to mobilize an attack at the injustices laid upon us or anyone else. This new, 21st century style of free speech is nothing compared to the emotionally charged times of our parents.
Finally, by 2:30 p.m.,we had reached what I thought was going to be the highlight of the day as the aforementioned Kevin Martin of the FCC took to the podium. Actually, before he even got up there I knew my expectations had risen too high.
The overly nervous law student introducing him made a big to-do about his appointment to his current position by none other than the formidable “W.” Well then, the same guy who hired a gym teacher to be the Attorney General. I’m sure this Martin character is properly qualified.
When he finally go up to speak it became obvious as to why he was selected to such a high ranking position; he looks like the cutest 12-year old kid I’ve ever seen. I was waiting for him to start sipping on a juice box the entire time–to which I waited in vain.
His peevish, little-boy next door voice was barely loud enough to be picked up by either of the two microphones. Unfortunately I could still slightly hear him. I say unfortunately because he gave the most watered down, elementary speech that a respected adult could seemingly come up with.
Nothing he said pertained to free speech. He essentially gave a 10-minute book report on the history of the FCC and a few of the important regulations that they have enforced for broadcasting over the years.
The only topic somewhat resembling free speech was in his apparent obsession with discussing Janet Jackson’s nipple. Surely his mother will wash his mouth out with soap for talking of such filth.
Once Beaver Cleaver was finally done talking about yo-yos or whatever it was he was talking about, we reached the third and final panel of the day. As a student of journalism this was the panel I had looked forward to the most, and finally my patience paid off.
The topic was Freedom of Speech and Press in the Digital Age and the distinguished speakers brought some great insight into the massive changes taking place in the world of journalism.
The first speaker to go was Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin–who I must say would be the finest Harold Ramis impersonator I’ve ever come across. He discussed in great detail the perfect storm that now exists with the amount of technology we have access to. Not only in that everyone has the ability to get their voice out, but at the same time, that means more people are leaving themselves open to get in trouble for things they say.
He made great points in discussing that journalism is in a difficult transition period because of the new “user generated content” but that media can eventually change to figure out the proper way to keep salience and accreditation in order to bring proper news to the world and not just blogging idiocy.
David Hiller, Publisher and CEO of the Los Angeles Times, kept this train of thought going, applying it more directly to his field. He and his cohorts know that the days of “it’s not a story until we print it” are long gone. Everyone with some coherence about them, or maybe none it all, can be a reporter now and the newspaper industry needs to adjust to that.
Basically, all of the old school traditions of newspapers are going to be thrown out the window. They aren’t worried about once a day publishing, they have to keep stories coming in and out 24 hours a day. They aren’t just competing with other newspapers, they have TMZ and Matt Drudge to worry about also.
I found Hiller’s time at the podium far more insightful than any other speeches during the day. His discussion on the lack of money-making potential for newspapers and the quest to find the proper new business model was very frank and informative.
While it would have been nice to end the day on after such a great speech, I couldn’t work up the nerve to leave in the middle of the next speaker due to his unabashed craziness.
Professor of Law at the University of Texas, Lucas Powe, took to the podium and immediately went into hilarious old-man rant. Barely able to peek above the podium, Powe ranted on and on about his love for the FCC, his disdain for the comedy of George Carlin and the stupidity of the Fairness Doctrine.
Whether the majority of the laughs he was getting were genuine or more the “pity for the old man” laughs I’m not so sure. But after his tirade on George Carlin, our own Ken Starr was laughing uncontrollably.
Reaching the eight-hour mark for the day, I couldn’t keep my sanity any longer and fled the scene before the “Concluding Reflections” followed by the “Closing Remarks.” What I’m sure was 30 minutes of inseparable and astounding reflections and/or remarks.
As for my own reflections and/or remarks, I found the symposium to be a far cry from what it could have been. As Jack Balkin put it, “Freedom of speech is not only the essence of our freedom as a nation but it is the most crucial part in protecting the process of democracy.”
I can’t help but think that all of these speeches would have been better served if they were given to the proper, young and open minded audience that it should have been aimed towards. Instead, the day turned into a sharing of monotonous and sometimes irrelevant stories to a room full of old friends. Very old friends.
It seems oxymoronic to contain what should have been an important day of democratic exercise in such a way that no one has any idea that it’s even going on. But maybe that’s just how these things work, and only those of us who really care about our freedoms, or lack there of, will panhandle for the truth.
As Professor Strossen put it best, “Governments will do what governments do. What’s important is that the people who know better, do something about it.”
04-21-