According to the Wall Street Journal<\/em>, President Obama in China argued in favor of Internet freedom<\/a>, with arguments that should apply to all First Amendment freedoms:<\/p>\n Speaking to a selected group of Chinese students at the beginning of his first visit to China, Mr. Obama said that the free flow of information makes societies stronger and holds political leaders accountable. People in positions of power may bristle at criticism, he said, but open criticism “makes our democracy stronger, and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear.”<\/p>\n Mr. Obama’s words, however, likely reached few Chinese. In contrast to visits by his two predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Mr. Obama’s talk was not broadcast live on national television.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Chinese typically respond to criticisms with charges of hypocrisy, and while I’m unsympathetic to them on that account, Americans might do well to pay attention to the charges this time.\u00a0 Consider that this President has:<\/p>\n Administration apologists will argue that such examples only prove the President’s point\u00a0– that a free press circumscribes presidential power.\u00a0 But even if that were his point – and I don’t think it was – it’s not as though the President has been supportive of such a press.\u00a0 Instead, he and his administration see it as an evil that needs to be suffered through and circumscribed, not a positive good.<\/p>\n As usual, universal principles are really about how they affect Obama: they make him hear opinions he doesn’t want to hear.\u00a0 That, of course, is only part of the value of a free press.\u00a0 The people have the right to petition the government, which would produce the same effect.\u00a0 Indeed, the open comment period that\u00a0most\u00a0federal bureaucracies have\u00a0during their rule-making process produces the same effect, but it’s hardly the core of the First Amendment.\u00a0 Monarchies and autocracies throughout history have had mechanisms for wise rulers to take the temperature of their subjects and their various interest groups when forming policy.<\/p>\n No, freedom of speech is about letting people communicate with each other.\u00a0 It’s about organizing opposition and support\u00a0in a pluralistic society, with a separation of powers and a federal system.\u00a0 It’s a key part of the process of self-government, where citizens debate each other about issues and policies and principles.\u00a0 And while it’s certainly a part<\/em> of our elected leaders’ exercise of power, it’s much more often a check and a limitation on that power.<\/p>\n The President of a free people should know better.<\/p>\n UPDATE: Of course, I <\/em>should have known\u00a0better than to forget the process by which Congress has passed multi-thousand-page bills this year, in virtual secrecy, without decent public review of their content, and that in direct contravention to promised transparency.\u00a0 Free and open debate works best when it disseminates actual information, something that the Democratic Congressional leadership has striven mightily to prevent.\n
\n