PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on July 28, 2016, 01:17:59 PM
-
"With Freedom comes Responsibility" - Eleanor Roosevelt
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the press." The courts have long struggled to determine whether the Framers of the Constitution intended to differentiate press freedom from speech freedom. Most have concluded that freedom of the press derives from freedom of speech. Although some cases and some legal scholars, including Justice Potter Stewart, of the U.S. Supreme Court, have advocated special press protections distinct from those accorded to speech, most justices believe that the Freedom of the Press Clause has no significance independent of the Freedom of Speech Clause.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+the+Press
I'd like to discuss this idea of Freedom of the Press in terms of a responsibility to truth. After all, "The People" are supposed to be the 4th Branch of the Government, but is largely dependent upon the Press for information and situational awareness.
I'd like to see a standard of Professional Ethics and Standards in Journalism enforced, after all its been argued that they have expanded right under Freedom of Speech, therefore the window of responsibility should likewise be more stringent. I'd also like to see laws made and enforced that statements made by Public Officials (elected and appointed) and reported via press to carry the same weight as a deposition or other statements made under oath. People should be held accountable when they speak and KNOW they are being deceptive OR are speaking from assumptions or failures to investigate, in cases where it's their duty to know.
Thoughts?
-
Who is to be the arbiter of truth?
-
Who is to be the arbiter of truth?
The court of public opinion has dull teeth.
-
The court of public opinion has dull teeth.
sharp teeth do not an aribiter make
-
The answer to bad speech is more speech. If someone of the "Press" is inaccurate or untruthful, the remedy is someone else in the Press to speak up and correct the record. This, incidentally, explains in large measure the success of conservative talk radio.
-
You'd like the standards of professional responsibility enforced...by whom?
-
The answer to bad speech is more speech. If someone of the "Press" is inaccurate or untruthful, the remedy is someone else in the Press to speak up and correct the record. This, incidentally, explains in large measure the success of conservative talk radio.
^^^^^^^^ This, completely.
-
You'd like the standards of professional responsibility enforced...by whom?
The Hillary administration, through Executive Order. Duh.
-
Who is to be the arbiter of truth?
Your question is the problem. Something is true and happened or it is not true and did not happen. The media should not be reporting speculation.
-
Your question is the problem. Something is true and happened or it is not true and did not happen. The media should not be reporting speculation.
Determining the truth is why we have juries.
The argument was put forth that liars should face penalties. For that to happen though, some entity has to determine the truth. I asked who that should be.
-
The answer to bad speech is more speech. If someone of the "Press" is inaccurate or untruthful, the remedy is someone else in the Press to speak up and correct the record. This, incidentally, explains in large measure the success of conservative talk radio.
Agreed. I would add that there are no technical limits on speech, however that doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Politicians have been forced to resign over statements they've made (founded or not). The unfortunate part is that the media often times tries to act as the judge, jury and executioners of the court of free speech.