LETTERS I: PROF. TOM WEST

Prof. Tom West wrote me a kind reaction to my post on his article claiming that speech is now less free than it was in the late 18th century. Here's the bulk of his e-mail:

You are right to zero in on the problem of sedition laws and state-level restrictions on speech and press in the founding. I have an answer to that, but it is part of a long (75-page) article: "Freedom of Speech in the American Founding and in Modern Liberalism." To be published in Social Philosophy and Policy 21 (Winter 2004), 310-384. Also to be published in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jr., and Jeffrey Paul, eds., Freedom of Speech. New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2004.

This article goes into much greater depth than I was able to do in the Hillsdale talk.

I thought you misunderstood my meaning regarding the impact of campaign finance laws. I didn't mean that their impact is altogether anti-Republican. There are lots of liberal and partially liberal, partially conservative Republicans. What I meant is that these laws are designed, broadly speaking, to limit the conservative press (understanding "press" to mean any means of duplicating words or pictures). It is not quite incumbent protection (Scalia), because the overall direction of today's government is moderate to liberal. True, most conservatives are Republicans, but many Republicans are not particularly conservative. These Republicans don't mind campaign finance regulation. E.g., a number of Republican senators and reps voted for it, and Bush signed it. The quotations from liberals in the debate over the BCRA were often attacks on the National Rifle Association and other conservative groups who put out campaign ads that are much harder hitting than the Republican Party is generally willing to be. The NRA is far more openly and firmly in favor of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms than the mainstream of the Republican Party is.

I look forward to reading the longer version of the argument.