All the President's Men

Bob Woodward and Howard Bernstein were ordinary newspaper men who  happened to land one of the biggest news stories of the time. From the outset, it was their attention to details and their commitment to keep digging that eventually revealed the ugly truth of what was being done behind the closed doors of our own government, and the results were effective enough that Nixon had to step down from the presidency, after being re-elected. 

Their story is an extremely relevant example of why the free press is such a vital part of our society. The freedom to criticize our government and to hold them accountable for their  actions is one of our most valuable freedoms, and it is something we  must always defend in order to function as a working democracy. 

The spirit of the people must frequently be roused, in order to curb the ambitions of the [royal] court; and the dread of rousing the spirit must be employed to prevent that ambition. Nothing is so effectual to this purpose as the liberty of the press; by which all the learning, wit, and genius of the nation, may be employed on the side of freedom, and everyone animated to its defense."

-David Hume (1742)

In addition to being very entertaining, the movie, All the President's Men,  did a wonderful job of showing the journalistic process that went into Bernstein and Woodward's stories about the Watergate scandal.  It was amazing to me that they ever got anywhere with their inquiries, considering how incredibly tightlipped everyone remotely connected to the government proved to be.  These two reporters showed a lot of determination and had to use creative methods of getting their information, which at times, seemed to flirt with the line of journalistic integrity. Nevertheless, they showed a good deal of patience and did make a meticulous effort to confirm every bit of information they used in their stories, which was not easy in these particular circumstances.  

I was curious, however, about whether a deep background source similar to  "Deep Throat" would normally be considered a useable source, or whether this was deemed a story important enough to justify a somewhat un-orthodox method.  While the source was connected with the parties involved in the scandal, and had a good deal of information, he wasn't actually sharing information as much as simply confirming it, and often non-verbally. Is this accepted practice?  

In any case, it seems obvious that the methods Woodward and Bernstein chose to employ were influenced by the unusual nature  of the story and the prominence of the people involved in the scandal.  In the end, they accomplished what all journalists aspire to do, and in so doing, they gave the public the ability to hold their nation's leaders accountable for their actions. 

Free Speech and The Stolen Valor Act

The decision in the case of United States v. Alvarez will 

undoubtedly be one which will have a great impact on the freedoms protected under the First Amendment.  This decision will set a precedent which would give the government the ability to punish those who lie about military honors. Xavier Alvarez, who was a board member to the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Claremont, Calif., claimed to have been a Marine and to have received the Medal of Honor. None of this was true.  Following a complaint from a citizen, the FBI got involved and Alvarez subsequently became the first to be indicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act. While Alvarez did plead guilty, he later decided to appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Up until now, our government has never attempted to police American citizens to this extent.  While this particular act only applies to lies regarding military honors, the precedent it will set if it decides in favor of the Stolen Valor Act will open the door for the punishment of other lies which do not cause direct harm. We already have a system which protects citizens from damaging speech such as fraud, defamation and libel. This introduces a completely different category of speech limitation. Alvarez's lies did not cause any direct harm, and he did not gain any tangible thing as a result of his dishonesty. The only thing gained was perhaps a better image in the eyes of his peers, which was ultimately lost when his lies were inevitably exposed. 

It seems intuitive that lies are ultimately a negative form of expression, but to attempt to monitor and punish citizens for telling lies is not only horribly impractical, but it also requires the government to step into the role of defining good and bad expression. Oppressive  governments who attempt to become the ultimate morality authority over its citizens have historically failed to maintain this level of control. In addition, putting excessive limitations the freedom of expression has serious consequences that affect the entire nation, and so should be avoided for the good of society.

"(The Founding Fathers) knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones."

- Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Dissenting on Olmstead V. U.S 

It does not seem necessary for the government to punish liars  when there is no tangible harm or gain resulting from the lie. Is it now the job of the government to make sure none of us is thought of more highly than we deserve, and to punish those who dare to embellish for sake of bettering their self image? If so, the government certainly has its work cut out for it, as they really should be sifting through every resume submitted to every employer in the nation. There is a goldmine of lies to be found there, to be sure. Of course, this would land a pretty large portion of the population in trouble with the government. 

In most cases, there are ways which society effectively deals with liars without the interference of the government. Employers have the right to fire employees when they have lied on their resumes. Then there is the press, the watchdog of our society, whose purpose is often to expose lies and to balance power with criticism. When the press does its job correctly, there is no way people like Alvarez can deceive the public forever. In many cases, liars get what is coming to them without the government stepping in like an overbearing parent.

In the end, the value of the freedoms being jeopardized should outweigh the indignation of the military and the desire to penalize those offensive persons who rely on lies to make themselves look better than they actually are. These liars are simply not important enough to spend the time, money and effort necessary to process them for such a minor issue. It is better for the country as a whole to avoid setting precedents which will put further limitations on the freedom of expression, even when that expression comes in the form of lame, selfishly motivated lies.