Jeopardizing freedom of the press

Apparently, some folks are dead serious about altering the 1st Amendment. Consider this proposal:

How widespread is the desire to criminalize what amounts to "journalistic disinformation"? Is this really a good idea?

 

If this could happen without abuse I would be all for it. However it would be impossible to make sure that one side does not gain to much power and cause one side to get shut down because they cannot afford the fees.

 

So you think that newspapers and tv news should simply be allowed to say what they want and lie to the american people without punishment?

The freedom of the press is a two lane road.....They have the right to run any stories that they want.....But they have the Ethical responsibility to show the facts.....a news venue that knowingly and purposely lies on their stories should not even be known as journalism.....They are no different than tabloids.........

 

A simple yes will suffice for now. I'm sure a lecture is forthcoming.

 

Why stop with the press?....

If we're going to subject information sources to authoritarian government sanctions, why not strike at the root....

and punish the purveyors of revisionist spin and agenda laden propaganda who've infested our public school systems?

 

OK...then I am going to start a newspaper and the first issue will be about you being a pedophile....Since you support news venues' right to lie and distort facts I'm sure you will approve of it.

 

The press have an ethical responsibvlity to stick provide real facts.....Giving their opinion on an issue is one thing, but the stuff fox news does, such as purposely altering videos and distorting facts is another...

 

Our university professors and public school educators don't?

 

When it comes to academic courses, such as math and science I think that teachers should be held to the wrong stanard. And for the most part they are...They have a set curricium and have to follow it.

 

The New York Times prints bull(*)(*)(*)(*) but for some reason I don't think they'd be on your list. This type of nonsense is a thinly disguised effort to eliminate media outlets that don't follow your party line.

I'm in favor of the 1st Amendment and will support it.

 

As I said before....the freedom of the press has to include a responsilbity to not LIE to the people.,....When a tv news station alters videos and distorts facts to better meet THEIR political views, they are no longer journalists....they are no different than a tabloid....

 

It should be illegal to use power to purposely alter public opinion based on false information. News sources can report what they want but if there is a slant it is no different than creating a dictatorship where the news is controlled.

 

Thank you.....I can't understand why this is such as hard concept to grasp.....A news venue has an ethical responaibility to report the truth....Altering facts to meet their personal views should be illegal....

 

Defamatory statements, like the one you make reference to as an illustration, can be dealt with under current law and the 1st Amendment as is. No changes are necessary.

 

It should be illegal but who is going to decide if they did not report the truth? The government would not do a good job no matter who is in power they would have their bias and they are the only ones who would have power to fine them.

Congress would have to have a special committee with equal amounts of republicans and democrats with some independents but even that may not work well.

In theory this is a great idea, its just putting into practice would allow abuse potentially blocking opposing opinions.

 

So what? You already came out against a news venue being punished for altering facts and lieing....So are you going back on your earlier view than? because according to you, a news venue should be allowed to lie whenever they want and present these lies as facts to the american people...

 

I oppose altering the 1st Amendment and making it illegal to lie in a news report. Not all reported falsehoods qualify as defamation and, in any case, defamatory statements are not, strictly speaking, illegal. They are subject to litigation, not prosecution. I should have been more careful in my statements. I fully support making news agencies accountable for publicly defaming individuals through litigation only. This has been a part of jurisprudence from the beginning. What I am supporting here is the status quo.

 

So you would support Obama sueing Sean Hannity for slander over doing this?

[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3hMODMyed8"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3hMODMyed8[/ame]

But you won't support a law that says members of the press are not allowed to lie during their broadcasts and purposely distort facts.

 

You got it.

 

So you believe that the press do not have an ethical responsilbity to report the truth, and thatThey have a constitutional right to lie to the american people and present these lies as 100% fact.

 

They do but I object to your proposal. Making intentionally false reports illegal is a morally objectionable alternative. Make use of the existing methods at your disposal to hold the press accountable.

 

I see nothing wrong with holding a new venue legally responsible for their lies......

Morallity is relative my friend...What you view as immoral, I do not.....

As I have said before.....The freedom of the press must include a responsilbity to stick to the truth....and present the facts as they are, changing nothing... In fact, I will go as far as saying that if a journalist does not perform his responsiblities as a journalist he/she should not be allowed to operate as a journalist.

He they have to lie to make sure that the news reflects their view, they should not be allowed to call themselves a journalist....They should have to call themselves something else....like tabloids do....

 

I do. The danger is in granting to the government the power to control media content, converting a free press into a state controlled media. The truth will be whatever the government says it is. Your intentions notwithstanding, all dissent will be identified as a lie and forbidden.

 

OH....So you consider making them stop lying to be taking away their "rights"

I see....You think they should be allowed to lie to the america people and make it so they can not make educated choices when they vote or make other decisions...

Should the people be allowed to sue over being lied to?

Should it be made into a civil offense to lie on a news broadcast instead of a criminal offense?

And I am confused about something....How is making news venues not lie on stories controlling the press? They would still be allowed to do any stories they want, the only difference is they would not be allowed to outright lie, or otherwise falsefy facts on these stories.....I do not consider the freedom of the press to include the right of the press to lie to their audience

 

Its all very simple. If you believe that a particular news outlet is falsifying the news, don't watch or read them. Enough people do this and pretty soon they are a non factor. Everyone knows that fox has its own agenda, and if they continue to consider them a source of "fair and balanced" news, then it is only because they like what they hear. As far as integrity, personal pride, honesty, in reporting is concerned-fox just talks about the value of it-they certainly don't practice it. Which proves beyond doubt that fox news has no moral values. That's why I don't watch them anymore.