Louis Brandeis With a Twist

One of the fundamental debates within our country since its beginning days has revolved around freedom. Yes, we want it and, yes, it defines the principle of our nation. But what limits, if any, should we place upon it? Should we literally have unlimited freedom in all areas or should parameters be imposed, for example, that restrict our citizen's ability to speak, bare arms, puruse a free market, or vote?  Rightly or not, the consensus has been to impose limits. Since the time of our Founding Fathers, the decision has been consistant: freedom - yes - but within certain guidelines. Thus, we are not now, nor have we ever been, a pure democracy. An easy example is the famous restriction that forbids a person from yelling "fire" in a crowded room.

The purpose of this kind of limitation has been to allow our nation to practice its freedoms but do so in a common sense and reasonable way. One hundred per cent freedom removes the purpose or effectiveness of laws or rules that define and ensure behavior supporting the welfare of all. The laws represent compromise toward achieving a nation that properly protects a person's ability to advance, take advantage of their opportunities and talents, and advance as far as they can  in terms of wealth and standing. All this leads me to a famous quote I recently came upon by one of our nation's most famous and acclaimed jurists: Louis Brandeis. 

The former member of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote: "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."  Brandeis was referring to the economics of our nation and the dangers of a plutocracy being formed in which a select few end up controlling the nation's purse strings, thus seriously compromising everyone else's opportunity to prosper. Such a sentiment is significant to communication as it speaks to our ability as people to express ourselves, be heard and access information without fear of that "right" being dominated. It is essential that we not fall into the trap of a communication plutocracy being created within our nation in which the wealthy and super wealthy control our information agenda as well as those who make decisions that affect it.