First Amendment Ombudsman p. 11

By: Debra Gersh Hernandez

Paul McMasters fills the role of new Freedom Forum position sp.

SOME DESCRIBE HIM as a paid zealot, others a free-speech maven, but Paul McMasters' official title is that of First Amendment ombudsman.
The question that follows is, of course, what is a First Amendment ombudsman?
"I think I've got a lot of latitude for defining the job, but my primary duties will involve representing the public interest in First Amendment issues that arise on the Hill ? whether in Congress or in the Court ? or in all the other public forums that are here in [Washington], where very serious First Amendment issues arise on too regular a basis," McMasters explained.
As of Nov. 1, McMasters became the first First Amendment ombudsman for the Freedom Forum in Arlington, Va. His appointment there followed four years of helping to establish the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. McMasters also is the immediate past president and a former Freedom of Information chairman for the Society of Professional Journalists.
"The big difference is in intensity and focus ? and in proximity," he said of his new job. "In my new role, I will be able to react more quickly and be more focused on issues and do more research and writing and speaking on the issues." There is no lobbying included in his job description.
McMasters' role will be "informational and educational and to raise the profile of issues" through contacting members of Congress, the media, advocacy groups, and the public "about what is going on and what the ramifications are of these various attempts to change free-speech or free-press freedoms."
With the whole First Amendment ? religion, speech, press, petition and assembly ? under his province, he may find it difficult to keep up with everything going on around Washington, but McMasters said he has a "wonderful network" for information.
"My job is just trying to prioritize and then finding the most appropriate way to respond," he said. "Is it an article in an academic journal? Is it an op-ed page piece? Is it a speech somewhere? Is it a telephone call? Is it something to just file away and wait 'till it grows?' "
One given is that hard work is something McMasters can count on with this job.
"On some mornings, when I come in, I feel almost overwhelmed . . . by the work to be done . . . and disappointed and disillusioned by the ignorance being shown as to what the First Amendment rights mean to us," he said.
"But at the same time, I am heartened to see that the First Amendment's working. I just wish the people who are attacking it would see that it's working.
"They come in under the protection of the First Amendment to attack the First Amendment rights of somebody else, and they never really are quite cognizant of the irony of that," he pointed out.
In addition to working his sources and networking, McMasters plans to have at least one program a month at the Freedom Forum to discuss matters in a round-table or panel format.
One issue he cared about deeply, calling it "one of the most serious First Amendment issues that has arisen in the last two centuries," was the recent attempt to amend the Constitution to make desecration of the American flag a crime.
Although the measure passed in the House, it was three votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed in the Senate.
Proponents have vowed to continue pressing the issue.
One reason McMasters took on the flag amendment is that it had no built-in constituency of its own.
"I won't be able to do every single thing I want to do. I will have to prioritize," he said.
"If there is a First Amendment issue out there that is very popular and very crucial, but it's got a coalition of organizations fighting for it, I feel that frees me up to focus on what I call the First Amendment orphans," McMasters said.
"Many First Amendment issues that arise have their own constituency because they impact on somebody's financial bottom line," he explained, citing as an example the proposed Exon amendment to the telecommunications bill that would regulate online pornography.
"There is a whole constituency of business interests out there, who have a vested interest in making sure that their ideas and their views are represented as the legislation makes its way through the congressional process," McMasters said.
"The flag-desecration amendment doesn't have a built-in constituency for the First Amendment just representing the public First Amendment interest. There's no money to be made in making the argument, so there is a role for somebody like me to play," he continued.
McMasters also said he is amazed "at how many efforts to censor and to restrict First Amendment freedoms are done in the name of the children," pointing to efforts to restrict violence and sex on television, to control advertising for alcohol and tobacco, and to determine the content of children's programming.
"Nobody loves kids more than I do, and nobody wants to protect them more than I do," McMasters said. "But I think that we will come to a terrible pass in this country if we make a public policy decision to limit the viewing, listening and reading habits of the American population to what is acceptable for a six-year-old or a sociopath."
One question that is not considered by people pushing these restrictive actions, however, is who is going to make the decisions about what will be censored or restricted?
"Nobody ever contemplates that, because when they ask themselves that question, suddenly their fervor for changing things and restricting things cools," McMasters said. "Because nobody in their right mind would really want to put a giant remote control for their television in the hands of unelected bureaucrats inside the Beltway."
Further, McMasters is particularly bothered by the fact that "attacks on the First Amendment have never been so effective and never been so many," and that they are coming from the political left, the right and even the middle.
"The upshot of that is, if everybody is given the right to lop off the particular branch of the First Amendment tree that they consider offensive, by the time all of these different groups coming at it from different angles are through, all that we've got left is an ugly little stump and no one to nurture it."
Although he used to believe these attacks were cyclical and that the pendulum would swing back some day, McMasters said he has found "no precedent in history for the assaults on First Amendment freedoms and the rising body of scholarship in some of our most prestigious institutions of higher learning, that says the First Amendment is the problem, not the solution."
McMasters said that, "From speech codes to a much more invidious sort of temperament on campus today, you've got high pressure on all individuals to be not nearly as heterogeneous in their thinking as one would think would be prevalent on a college campus. You've got people saying, 'If you don't do this, you will be punished.' It is criminalizing ideas and images, as well as words and actions, and I just think that's inimical in a democracy."
McMasters also said he is disappointed when the "professional press fails to come to the aid of, or even to understand in some cases, the First Amendment battles that student journalists are fighting."
"I just wish the professional press would spend more time covering those issues and getting involved in those issues, because even though many of those students won't ever become journalists themselves, they certainly are potential readers and audience. They need to understand what a free press is all about," he said.
In fact, one of his great frustrations comes from his colleagues in the press, who say they "have to stay above the fray" in fighting First Amendment issues in general.
"There is no other natural constituency for the First Amendment other than the press," McMasters said, stressing that he is "not asking, or even suggesting, that a reporter on the job compromise herself."
"But I don't think that a publisher or an editor, who devotes time and resources to First Amendment issues, is compromising anyone, least of all themselves," he said, explaining that the First Amendment belongs to the public, not the press.
McMasters also pointed out that "support for, and appreciation for, and knowledge of the First Amendment by members of the press is no better than that of the average public ? a fact that just astounds me when I see it in surveys."
"In fact," he added, "there is as much hostility toward, ignorance of, or apathy toward the First Amendment among the press as there is in the general population."
While there is an element of taking the First Amendment for granted in that attitude, McMasters chalked it up mainly to a lack of knowledge.
"There is such a focus on the day-to-day job that they never look up to see the big picture, either for their own profession or for the First Amendment that gives them the franchise, as well as protects the rights of the people," he said. "So, it's mainly a matter of education that needs to be done.
"The other thing, that I shouldn't be too surprised about, is that journalists are people. They're just as religious, just as partisan, just as lacking in some areas of their education as anybody, and we shouldn't be surprised at that. But we should work hard to make them more aware of the public's First Amendment rights," McMasters commented.
He conceded, however, that it can be difficult defending speech that may not be very pleasant.
"I tell you, I wouldn't have any other job in the world. I think what I'm doing is very important and I'm very happy to be doing it and feel fortunate to get paid for doing this."