Freedom of the Press?

[5stringJeff]

The Newsweek debacle, not to mention other raTHer disturbing incidents in the media lately, have got me thinking. So here are a couple of questions I've come up with, and I'm interested to hear people's opinions:

1. Is freedom of the press an absolute right? If not, what restrictions should be placed on the press?

2. If a false story is published that causes damage, harm, or death (like the Newsweek Koran story), should anyone be held responsible? If so, who? If not, why not?

 

[no1tovote4]

The Newsweek debacle, not to mention other raTHer disturbing incidents in the media lately, have got me thinking. So here are a couple of questions I've come up with, and I'm interested to hear people's opinions:

1. Is freedom of the press an absolute right? If not, what restrictions should be placed on the press?

2. If a false story is published that causes damage, harm, or death (like the Newsweek Koran story), should anyone be held responsible? If so, who? If not, why not?

1. It is not an absolute right, slander is still against the law and they can be made to pay for the results of incorrect reporting.

2. A smart trial lawyer would contact the families of the dead from the "Koran Desecration Riots" get them temp visas and get them here then sue the crap out of Newsweek.

 

[no1tovote4]

P.S. I also think this is second degree manslaughter and those responsible for reporting the story are directly responsible for the avoidable death of those people.

If I had a newspaper and "reported" that a "reward" would be paid for the death of one of my enemies. Then suddenly three people converged to do so and get the reward, I would still be held responsible for the murder.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Freedom of the press is just that, a freedom, but like many other things some people have buried their common sense under it. There was a time when joarnalists would actually find evidense and make sure a story was accurate before they published it. Now, any Tom, Dick, or Harry comes along with a widl story, tells them they want to remain anonymous, and next week it's on the front page.

The Newsweek story was technically treason. Yeah, I think something should be done. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you can print or report anything you want, true or not.

 

[5stringJeff]

Here's my take. Obviously, freedom of the press is not absolute. We have laws against libel. However, with freedom comes responsibility. The press, and those who wish to join "the press," have a responsibility, but I'm not sure how to define that responsibility. To whom are they responsible?

My take on the Newsweek piece is that the author who wrote the story and the editors that allowed it to go to press should 1) be fired, and 2) charged with some type of libel.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The Newsweek debacle, not to mention other raTHer disturbing incidents in the media lately, have got me thinking. So here are a couple of questions I've come up with, and I'm interested to hear people's opinions:

1. Is freedom of the press an absolute right? If not, what restrictions should be placed on the press?

2. If a false story is published that causes damage, harm, or death (like the Newsweek Koran story), should anyone be held responsible? If so, who? If not, why not?

1. Libel is already a restriction on the press. Otherwise it should be free.

2. Any false story that causes harm should fall under the libel charge. Stories that also contain libelous innuendo should also be prosecuted because, although they may not per se be incorrect they can still cause harm. Also, treasonous stories should be prosecuted.

Freedom of the press should come only with responsible press coverage.

 

[5stringJeff]

Stories that also contain libelous innuendo should also be prosecuted because, although they may not per se be incorrect they can still cause harm.

How would you define that? In other words, would calling Bush a "war criminal" (ala yeula) fit into your definition? What about calling Sen. Byrd "Sheets?" What about Ann Coulter's rants? Or Michael Moore's?

 

[no1tovote4]

How would you define that? In other words, would calling Bush a "war criminal" (ala yeula) fit into your definition? What about calling Sen. Byrd "Sheets?" What about Ann Coulter's rants? Or Michael Moore's?

Each of those is Opinion Journalism, that is different than freedom of the Press, it is Freedom of Speech instead of the Press when people speak their opinion about political figures. Had the story reported the story as opinion rather than fact, there would and could be no libel action taken against them.

However as I said before, their action directly led to the death of innocents, this is manslaughter. They should be charged and tried for their irresponsible and inaccurate reporting that directly killed people. The magazine should be sued for the libel as well as being directly responsible and sued for the death of those killed in the riots. However none of this action is being taken....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How would you define that? In other words, would calling Bush a "war criminal" (ala yeula) fit into your definition? What about calling Sen. Byrd "Sheets?" What about Ann Coulter's rants? Or Michael Moore's?

'Scuse me, but Coulter does not "rant".

Yes, I would consider calling Bush a "war criminal" without proof as libelous.
During war time, it could also be considered treasonous.

ps: as No1 said, if such things are in an editorial instead of a press report, then it's OK as it is an opinion piece.

 

[archangel]

'Scuse me, but Coulter does not "rant".

Yes, I would consider calling Bush a "war criminal" without proof as libelous.
During war time, it could also be considered treasonous.

ps: as No1 said, if such things are in an editorial instead of a press report, then it's OK as it is an opinion piece.

Geez and Jeff told me in other posts that he was a graduate of a Military Academy...West Point...I think...not sounding like it now! :cof:

 

[5stringJeff]

Each of those is Opinion Journalism, that is different than freedom of the Press, it is Freedom of Speech instead of the Press when people speak their opinion about political figures. Had the story reported the story as opinion rather than fact, there would and could be no libel action taken against them.

So where does one draw the line between freedom of speech (in opinion journalism) and freedom of the press? There is a lot of opinion mixed in with the news nowadays.

However as I said before, their action directly led to the death of innocents, this is manslaughter. They should be charged and tried for their irresponsible and inaccurate reporting that directly killed people. The magazine should be sued for the libel as well as being directly responsible and sued for the death of those killed in the riots. However none of this action is being taken....

I agree with you.

 

[5stringJeff]

'Scuse me, but Coulter does not "rant".

Look, I'm as hardcore a conservative as you are, but Ann Coulter does rant on occasion. Doesn't mean she has no good points - just means that she rants on occasion.

 

[no1tovote4]

So where does one draw the line between freedom of speech (in opinion journalism) and freedom of the press? There is a lot of opinion mixed in with the news nowadays.

When reported as fact, it is Freedom of the Press. When given as an editorial or otherwise reported as opinion it is Freedom of Speech.

I agree with you.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Look, I'm as hardcore a conservative as you are, but Ann Coulter does rant on occasion. Doesn't mean she has no good points - just means that she rants on occasion.

Well, OK, I won't say never as everyone has their bad days, but as a whole she does not "rant". Definition of rant is "to talk or say in a loud, wild, or extravagant way; declaim violently; rave". Coulter's writings are more like entertaining editorials. Her writing is more mischievous or prankish in an intelligent manner and everything she says is based on facts.

In fact, in any verbal exchange with liberals, it is always the liberals who lose their cool and begin ranting, not Ann. They try to defeat her by running her over with loud and empty verbiage. If one is at the other end of the sharp stick that she points with, there is little else that they can do. It's very hard to contradict what she espouses with such skill.

Give the lady her due. She's top notch.

 

[no1tovote4]

Here's a good question. If Freedom of Religion means that Churches must be hidden in people's basements and God never be mentioned by any representative of the Government because it seems to mean freedom from religion to the Atheist, does Freedom of the Press mean that the Press can't be out in the open and anybody in the Government who reads a paper cannot mention what they have learned because we also have Freedom from the Press?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Here's a good question. If Freedom of Religion means that Churches must be hidden in people's basements and God never be mentioned by any representative of the Government because it seems to mean freedom from religion to the Atheist, does Freedom of the Press mean that the Press can't be out in the open and anybody in the Government who reads a paper cannot mention what they have learned because we also have Freedom from the Press?

Hmmm. Interesting point. That would mean Freedom of Speech actually means "Shut the hell up".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hmmm. Interesting point. That would mean Freedom of Speech actually means "Shut the hell up".

More like "Shut the hell up, you right wing Christo-fascist capitalist neo-con extremists". :fu2:

(or else deal with the ACLU)

 

[no1tovote4]

Hmmm. Interesting point. That would mean Freedom of Speech actually means "Shut the hell up".

Exactly, at least according to the lefty groups that promote the whole "Freedom from Religion" stance it must. Following logically the same path would lead you to, Freedom from Speech, Freedom from the Press, Freedom from Gathering, Freedom from....

Amazingly it makes the Bill of Rights seem exceedingly restrictive of any Right that you have....

 

[IControlThePast]

The Newsweek debacle, not to mention other raTHer disturbing incidents in the media lately, have got me thinking. So here are a couple of questions I've come up with, and I'm interested to hear people's opinions:

1. Is freedom of the press an absolute right? If not, what restrictions should be placed on the press?

2. If a false story is published that causes damage, harm, or death (like the Newsweek Koran story), should anyone be held responsible? If so, who? If not, why not?

There are libel laws, but they are largely ineffective because anybody can just say they had an unnamed source. Whether it be CBS, Newsweek, or even the President, and unnamed sources are often wrong and are often used just as an excuse to not to be sued. I think that media sources should have a 3 strikes anonymous source rule. Make each strike be an incorrect story from an anonymous source, and have it count towards the three strikes for 10 years. After three strikes, a news firm can't claim an anonymous source in a libel suit. That sounds good to me.