The Classical Scenario

The classical scenario celebrates the Enlightenment philosophy of the eighteenth century­­the century in which the first amendment was born. Classicists hail an educated citizenry as the essential component of a free society and urge that serious learning requires emphasis on reading, writing, and face­to­face dialogue. The classical vision is collective, not egocentric. The traditional model of the American town meeting­­citizens coming together, talking about, debating, and resolving issues­­is the embodiment of this ideal. A classical regime champions moderation in all things: self­ restraint is the sine qua non of self­governance and interest in the public good. Antithetical to this objective is the specter of self­indulgent and alienating consumption. Accordingly, the classical theorist views unchecked commercialism as a clear and present danger. The modern mass media, particularly as it filters culture through television, imperils the very existence of the classical scheme. As it evokes from the audience emotional responses to its stimuli, the commercial electronic media tyrannize the public mind. Thus, at the center of the classical scenario, rationality, collective decision making, and public discourse are united in the doctrine of the first amendment. Any obstacle to, or interference with, this union is inimical to the principles of the first amendment and is therefore subject to prohibition.

Professor Alexander Meiklejohn is the leading American actor in the classical scenario. More than four decades ago, he warned of the exploitative nature of the mass electronic media; rather than promoting important first­amendment values of collective decision making, it corrupts and suffocates them:

[T]he total effect [of commercial radio], as judged in terms of educational value, is one of terrible destruction. The radio . . . is not cultivating those qualities of taste, of reasoned judgment, of integrity, of loyalty, of mutual understanding upon which the enterprise of self­government depends. On the contrary, it is a mighty force for breaking them down. ¹⁰⁹

Consequently, this electronic medium must be denied first­amendment protection in the very name of the first amendment:
The radio as it now operates among us is not free. Nor is it entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. It is not engaged in the task of enlarging and enriching human communication. It is engaged in making money. And the First Amendment does not intend to guarantee men freedom to say what some private interest pays them to say for its own advantage. ¹¹⁰