Bastardization of freedom of speech

In UK thousands of people have been prosecuted for offensive forum, Facebook, Twitter posts. It does not happen in USA.

But even here, Free Speech has its limits.

MaggieD said:

And why would that be? The reporter may have made the story up out of whole cloth. Sue HIM for libel if he won't name his source.

Click to expand...

The problem is there's a very slippery slope there, and in general those things are avoided when it comes to constitutional matters.

Essentially, how would you setup a system to determine when/how a judge can compel an individual reporter to name his sources or suffer the punishment for an action they themselves didn't necessarily engage in? Are we suggesting that anonymous sources are essentially no longer allowed, and on what authority does the government have to passing such a law restricting the press?

I understand the sentiment, but it's an extremely difficult notion that I'd be hard pressed to get behind without some extremely strict guidelines.

Zyphlin said:

The problem is there's a very slippery slope there, and in general those things are avoided when it comes to constitutional matters.

Click to expand...

Definitely USA does not want to take the example of UK, Canada, Australia.

At one point in time, reputable journalists reporting in reputable news media outlets were given the benefit of the doubt, as to the veracity of their reporting, and had to be proven incorrect or inaccurate.

But, alas, that seems to have fallen to the way side, along with the lack of any appearance of being unbiased, as well as the falling journalistic integrity, neither of which is no more.

Now, even reputable journalists reporting in reputable news media outlets will have to prove their reporting is correct and accurate.

Bodhisattva said:

I pretty much dont believe anything a reporter say about politics until i find it confirmed on multiple politcally/culturally diverse news groups. Too much blatant lying. They dont even care about the truth anymore... if they ever even did.

Click to expand...

I would imagine some year down the road, when "the news" has morphed into what ever it is that will pass for it then, this period of time will be viewed as when "news" as most people had imagined it, destroyed itself.

It's hard to imagine why an important facility of public discourse would so willingly, and wantonly, consume lethal poison, and perhaps for decades to come, render themselves suspect, and rather useless.

MaggieD said:

And why would that be? The reporter may have made the story up out of whole cloth. Sue HIM for libel if he won't name his source.

Click to expand...

The usual legal rule is that a person who republishes defamatory speech may also be liable for it. For anyone who wants to read about this general subject of defamatory speech, public figures, and the limits of the freedom of speech, the big Supreme Court case is New York Times v. Sullivan, from 1964.

MaggieD said:

Yes, I know freedom of speech is sacrosanct. But is this really what our founders were trying to protect with freedom of speech?

I don't want to see HC as the next POTUS, but this is vile. We are going to go out of our minds over the next many years trying to separate lies from truth. Why, when someone is a public figure, are others able to lie about them with no consequence? Is this in the best interest of the USA?



Your thoughts?

Oh. And where in the Constitution does it say a reporter's source is sacrosanct? Obviously, it doesn't. So why is it acceptable for anonymous sources to slander people with no consequence?

Click to expand...

There are civil remedies if wrong has been done. Lawsuits for slander do prevail from time to time.

Thoreau72 said:

There are civil remedies if wrong has been done. Lawsuits for slander do prevail from time to time.

Click to expand...

You're right. But the damage is done. And it's the old blood out of a turnip thingie... Also, of course, it is very expensive to pursue justice civilly.

MaggieD said:

Yes, I know freedom of speech is sacrosanct. But is this really what our founders were trying to protect with freedom of speech?

I don't want to see HC as the next POTUS, but this is vile. We are going to go out of our minds over the next many years trying to separate lies from truth. Why, when someone is a public figure, are others able to lie about them with no consequence? Is this in the best interest of the USA?



Your thoughts?

Oh. And where in the Constitution does it say a reporter's source is sacrosanct? Obviously, it doesn't. So why is it acceptable for anonymous sources to slander people with no consequence?

Click to expand...

It's about putting rights ahead of responsibilities. They have a legal right to publish this kind of garbage, but they also have a moral responsibility to not publish it if it's crap like this. Unfortunately, our society has become one where rights are more important than responsibilities. We have a law in Oregon that states that vehicle have to yield to pedestrians in sidewalks. It's a good law, but what has happened is situations like what I seen at least a couple times a month where people simply walk into traffic and glare at the cars, almost daring them to hit them. Yes, they have the right to do so, but they also have a responsibility to make sure that they don't die in the process. The press has become like these twits, putting their right to publish whatever they want ahead of their responsibility publish the truth.