Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress needs to support the marketplace of ideas

Opinion

Man maintaining telegraph wire

in 1847, the government decided to sell off the telegraph line between Washington and D.C. That decision limited the government's role in advancing the marketplace of ideas.

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

March 4, 1847, should be covered in every American history textbook. On that day, Congress assessed the profitability of the telegraph line it helped Samuel Morse build between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. The ledger was bleak: Looking back at a recent year of messages, Congress had spent $3,925.14 to maintain the line and received just $413.44 in revenue from message fees.

So on that fateful day in 1847, the postmaster general, "confronted by a depressing condition of the postal finances and despairing of legislative support in prosecuting the [telegraph] enterprise as a part of the Postal Service, effected the sale of the Government line," as summarized by a postal commission in 1913.

A few decades later, the short-sightedness of that decision was as obvious as an elephant in a kindergarten classroom. By 1866, Western Union had managed to squeeze out all competition in the telegraph industry, form what would soon be a nationwide monopoly and limit the use of the telegraph to the elite. More importantly, Congress had failed in its mandate to “establish Post Office and Post Roads,” as set forth by Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.


That oft-neglected power – the Postal Power – mandates that Congress provide Americans with a marketplace of ideas via the primary channel of information exchange. Let’s break that down. As of 1790, upon ratification of the Constitution, the postal network was the only means of distributing information. It carried the newspaper, magazines, pamphlets, letters, information on Congress, and on and on.

Under British rule, the government exploited the people’s reliance on the postal system by operating it in a way as to make revenue from their search for knowledge. In a major break with the past, the Founders pledged to run the network to encourage the spread of reliable news and to foster democratic discourse. With the passage of the Post Office Act of 1792, the Founders codified their radical vision of a democracy of informed citizens.

That act subsidized the distribution of newspapers and allowed publishers to exchange copies of their papers at no cost so that they could reprint the latest and most informative stories. Importantly, newspapers in that age had a reputation for being nonpartisan. Historian John Nerone suggests that though many of the Founding era papers had a partisan bent, many more avoided such skewed coverage.

In addition to increasing the supply of democratic information, the act also expanded the market itself. In 1788, the United States had just 69 post offices. Thanks to the decision by the Second Congress to directly build a larger market for ideas, that number rapidly expanded – 903 offices had been built by 1800; 4,500 by 1820, and more than 13,000 by 1840.

On the whole, the Post Office Act demonstrated Congress’ recognition of maintaining, expanding and improving the marketplace of ideas. Yet, in 1847, Congress forgot the importance of fulfilling that duty regardless of technological shifts.

In the years since, the marketplace of ideas has moved further and further away from government control. Many folks celebrate that independence as a good thing; yet, those same folks often fail to realize that we’ve simply shifted government control to corporate control. The latter, in my opinion, is far scarier for two main reasons. First, corporations will always be governed by a profit mandate. And, second, corporations are unaccountable to Average Joes and Janes via the ballot box.

As we enter a new technological paradigm in the Age of AI, we need to ask who should operate the marketplace of ideas. If this marketplace fails, then our democracy will be imperiled. That’s an outcome we cannot tolerate. Maintaining a marketplace of ideas isn't cheap (we learned that in 1847), but a deliberative democracy is worth every penny (a daily lesson).


Read More

classroom, learning, teaching, class, students

AI literacy isn’t just about jobs. Learn why schools should teach students to question AI outputs, verify claims, and think critically as citizens.

Getty Images, Rafa Fernandez Torres

AI Is Shaping Democracy. Are We Preparing Students?

Almost everyone I know is talking about artificial intelligence. Teacher friends say it helps with administrative tasks, then describe their frustration when students use it to complete assignments. Principals wonder whether teachers are using it effectively. Colleagues past and present worry about how it will shape their students’ lives. And among parents in my kids’ circles, the chatter is mostly about jobs: Do we need AI literacy to stay relevant at work? What does AI mean for our children’s future careers? How much should we trust it?

These questions matter, but I worry we’re missing the plot. AI literacy isn’t only about preparing students to work with AI. It’s about preparing them to live in a democracy increasingly shaped by it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Judge's Gavel Hammer as a Symbol of Law and Order with Processor CPU AI Chip.

Anthropic warns of AI botnets seizing the web. A veteran trial attorney argues the solution is simple: unplug the internet and bring back an analog society.

Getty Images, Alexander Sikov

Let the Bots Have the Internet!

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has warned "that a swarm of AI agents soon ‘could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.’”

Oh, perish the thought! I say, let’s unplug from and discontinue use of the internet. Let the bots roam uselessly on an unused internet and perhaps die a natural death there!

Keep ReadingShow less
Illustration of a man and woman arguing

Arguments or debates, disputes or conflicts, verbal clashes. Angry men and women roar at each other

Getty Images

What If Polarization Is the Wrong Diagnosis?

I just listened to political scientist Lilliana Mason challenge one of the most familiar explanations of what is wrong with American politics.

We are constantly told that America suffers from polarization. Republicans and Democrats have moved too far apart. They distrust each other, increasingly regard one another as enemies, and have lost the ability to compromise. The prescribed remedies are familiar: more civility, more dialogue, less hostility, and a return to the political center.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Vintage Computer with AI Text on Screen and Neon Lighting, figures of people standing around it.

Calling AI “super” makes it sound omniscient. A faith leader coalition explains why the word “artificial” matters and what to do instead.

Royalty-free/Getty Images

Reject the Sand God. Call AI by Its True Name

President Trump recently signed an executive order telling federal agencies to replace the term "artificial intelligence" with "Super Intelligence." He said the word "artificial" makes the technology sound fake.

Many Americans already treat AI as a “super intelligence” that knows better and that they should confide in. Many already assign it the role of spiritual counsel, close confidante, or even romantic partner. In a Common Sense Media survey, one-third of teenagers claimed they had discussed serious personal matters with an AI instead of a person, and 31 percent said talking with an AI companion was as satisfying as talking with friends, or even more so. Bible Chat, an app that offers scripture-based advice and prayers, has been downloaded more than 30 million times.

Keep ReadingShow less