IN THE FIRST CHAPTER of the huge multi-volume A History Of The Book In America, the eminent librarian Hugh Amory starts:
From the beginning, printers have rejoiced in two ideologies; one vindicates the majesty of their art; the other exculpates its abuses. In the more familiar of these pleas, echoed in may an early colophon, theirs is a divine art and mystery, Laurens Couster's "art that preserves all arts" (ARS ARTIVM OMNIVUM CONSERVATRIX), Johannes Gutenberg's "artful venture" . . .
The alternative ideology, though rarely noticed by historians of the colonial book before Stephen Botein, insists that publishing is only a trade, exercised by "mere mechanics" who must print whatever comes to their hands. William Bradford, the first printer in Pennsylvania, claimed that his divine art deserved the special patronage of the colony, yet, only six years after his arrival in 1685, he argued that the Philadelphia magistrates could not blame him for printing George Keith's attack on the Quakers, since he had to take whatever work he could get. . . .
Due to a lack of time, I've skipped the lists provided of examples of each of these self-serving ideological formulas in practice instead of in abstract claims.
And it is self-serving and dishonest and hypocritical. The history of printing and publishing - the proverbial "press" of First Amendment fame - is full to the top of negative consequences of what has been done by the printing industry, a profit making venture, something which, by the very words of the first claim is an entirely artificial human creation, not carrying with it any kind of natural right.
Similar two-steps are frequently found of self glorification of those engaged in different human enterprises then followed by a total disavowal of the frequently bad consequences of those, often destroying the lives and rights of People, damage to the environment, inciting violence, in the case of lawyering and judging and "justice"ing finding for those who do all of those evils. That's as true for the most obvious instances of intentional harm doing as that of those who are secondary in allowing that to happen and the ones who get the wrongdoers out of any penalty for doing it.
I have a whole list of rights which are often summarily disposed of by the publishing industry, by lawyers, by judges and "justices,"
The right to know the truth.
The right to have the truth about them being told.
The right to not be lied about.
The right to not be attacked by a mob, in person, in the media, online, etc.
The right for all of us to have an honestly informed voting public who will install the government. That last one is among the most obvious of the most consequential rights which was never included in any of the Constitutional language, on which any notion of self-governance, representative governance or democracy completely depends.
That the fabled founders never noted that shows what total amateurs they were when they set up the government. To put the present First Amendment language in place without such stipulations was always a guarantee to produce anything but an egalitarian democracy. The worship of The First Amendment as it is and, especially as it is read by Supreme Courts, lower judges and "civil liberties" lawyers extremely dangerous to those who will be destroyed and attacked AND TO THE POSSIBLE ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION OF A REAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.
That Benjamin Franklin, probably the wisest of those in what they decided was going to be the Constitutional Convention, was a professional printer is certainly relevant to what came out of that. That so many of them were lawyers and, overriding that all, they were all affluent, aristocrats many with questionable business practices and many slavers as well.
We need a new Bill of Rights that includes those rights I've listed above and many others as well, the right to a livable environment perhaps more pressing than any of them. But you'll never get that until the Constitution stipulates there is no such a thing as "corporate person-hood" and there are no rights held by corporations, and that there is no "right to lie." Anyone who says there are such rights are anti-democrats, anti-egalitarians, they are tools of the oligarchs and plutocrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment