Is our freedom of speach under attack by the Media and political lobbiests? (1 Viewer)

[The Mark]

Has anyone noticed that, if someone speaks up about certain things, they are called racist, sexist, anti-gay, etc, etc, etc, by various news agencies, political lobbiests, and politicians, are forced to retract those statements, or go down in flames? (Hmm, alot of commas in that.....)

Please provide your favorite example.

 

[Kandahar]

Well, sometimes those criticisms are justified. Those opposed to immigration often (but not always) ARE racist, those opposed to gay marriage almost always ARE homophobic, etc.

However, I would agree that the terms get thrown around a lot when they shouldn't. Larry Summers was called a sexist for even questioning if perhaps the reason men do better at math is because of biological differences. Al Sharpton is a despicable human being who seems to believe that everyone who disagrees with him about anything is a racist.

 

[Hoot]

I resent the fact that journalists, who brought government corruption into the light of day, ( re: secret war prisons in countries that we are not at war with, and even their own governments are unaware of), that these exact same "whistle-blowers,' are now having their phone calls traced?!

A direct attack on freedom of the press.

 

[The Mark]

I resent the fact that journalists, who brought government corruption into the light of day, ( re: secret war prisons in countries that we are not at war with, and even their own governments are unaware of), that these exact same "whistle-blowers,' are now having their phone calls traced?!

A direct attack on freedom of the press.

I was under the impression that it was the phone records that were being looked at, to find out who had, in the past, called and leaked classified information.

Which is against the law.

Not that the current phone calls between leakers and journalists were being traced.

Which is against the law without a warrent. I think.

And, IMO, it is NOT, repeat NOT, a direct attack on freedom of the press.

 

[vexati0n]

If it's your constitutional right to spew bigoted nonsense like Fred Phelps does (and it is), then it's somebody else's constitutional right to call you a moron (and it is.) It isn't an attack on anyone's freedom of speech when their assertions are met with resistance, whether that resistance comes from the media or Hollyweird or anywhere else. You have the right to say what you believe, but you don't have the right to be the only person talking.

As for tracing telephone records, I think there's a place and a time for that. I just don't trust the government to do it judiciously and keep civil liberties and privacy at the top of the priority list where they should be. Journalists have a duty to the people they inform to "leak state secrets" when those state secrets involve corruption and constitutional transgression at any level of our government. The government, if it is breaking laws or behaving unethically, has absolutely no legal right to protect itself from being exposed.

PS. Talking about NSA wiretaps isn't ruining national security. Do you really think Al-Qaeda didn't already know that the US Gov't is spying on their communications?

 

[Kandahar]

I was under the impression that it was the phone records that were being looked at, to find out who had, in the past, called and leaked classified information.

The president can classify anything he wants to. Therefore it stands to reason that he'd be able to investigate anyone for leaking anything.

Leaks have always happened. If it's a national security problem, there are different levels of classification. The president can deny security clearance to all except those whom he trusts, to prevent the leak from happening in the first place.

It's not the media's fault that someone gave them some information. They're just doing their job.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

If it's your constitutional right to spew bigoted nonsense like Fred Phelps does (and it is), then it's somebody else's constitutional right to call you a moron (and it is.) It isn't an attack on anyone's freedom of speech when their assertions are met with resistance, whether that resistance comes from the media or Hollyweird or anywhere else. You have the right to say what you believe, but you don't have the right to be the only person talking.

As for tracing telephone records, I think there's a place and a time for that. I just don't trust the government to do it judiciously and keep civil liberties and privacy at the top of the priority list where they should be. Journalists have a duty to the people they inform to "leak state secrets" when those state secrets involve corruption and constitutional transgression at any level of our government. The government, if it is breaking laws or behaving unethically, has absolutely no legal right to protect itself from being exposed.

PS. Talking about NSA wiretaps isn't ruining national security. Do you really think Al-Qaeda didn't already know that the US Gov't is spying on their communications?

Very well said. I especially agree with that part about calling someone a moron for spewing non-sense.

 

[vexati0n]

This is definately a fair point.

But what about systematic avoidence of contraversial issues by writing off the supporters? I mean, obviously, it's still protected, but what about the effects?
Would you accept that if the media systematically uses rhetoric that is intended to discredit supporters of a given cause, it will effect overall opinion, and the extent of this effect, if left unquestioned, could, in the right situation, be limitless?
Would you also accept that to seriously threaten our first ammendment rights first you need the public in support of a fringe issue that would stake them in support of taking away those rights?
And if you accept both of those, then wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that the systematic use of rhetoric with the intent of discrediting supporters of a given cause could be a threat to our first ammendment rights?

I'm not saying that I neccisarily believe that this is a real substantial threat to first ammendment rights, but I am saying that it's a reasonable thing to believe, if you accept those beliefs.

It might seem like people are led like sheep by the media, but that's only because most of them are getting what they want from the media. The media is a reflection of the people, even if you believe its purpose is to keep them "in line," because it's giving us what most of us want just to keep us quiet.

Like it or not, the reason the media doesn't do more exposing of government fraud and corruption, or of war crimes and secret prisons, or whatever -- is because the people don't care. The general population wants the government to do what 'feels good,' not what necessarily is good. So that's what the media talks about -- and they do silence the opposition, if for no other reason than because the opposition makes the general population uncomfortable.

Even if the people are too lazy or ignorant to implement effective self-government, self-government is happening. When the people wake up, Fox News won't be able to stop them. Right now, people just don't care to hear the opposition.

 

[The Mark]

The president can classify anything he wants to. Therefore it stands to reason that he'd be able to investigate anyone for leaking anything.

Leaks have always happened. If it's a national security problem, there are different levels of classification. The president can deny security clearance to all except those whom he trusts, to prevent the leak from happening in the first place.

It's not the media's fault that someone gave them some information. They're just doing their job.

True. Which is one of the reasons that I am upset with the media for getting upset about it. As far as I understand, the FBI is after the person who leaked, not the media persons who were leaked too. And we can't make exceptions for someone who leaked classified information just because he/she leaked information that might not have needed to be classified. What if someone leaked the detailed plans for a mission that would take out Bin Laden? What if all of the soldiers on that mission died because of such a leak? Would you want that person to get away with light penalties?

 

[vexati0n]

The government is after the media because the media refuses to identify its source in this case. The media's argument is that it is vital they be allowed to maintain the anonymity of their sources because when dealing with government, sources are normally anonymous. Without anonymous sources, we would basically only have access to the official government line, and our media would be effectively no better than state-run media like they have in China.

The government's counter-argument is something like, "But we don't like it when people find stuff out that we're trying to hide, plus we can put you in prison if you don't cooperate." The idea that sensitive military or national-security level intelligence is somehow being handed over to the enemy is nonsense, unless you count the American People as part of the 'enemy.' If the information led to the failure of a specific military operation (which hasn't happened) then you can prosecute that one person for that one incident. Not make a whole new law about how anyone who betrays a government cover-up is a traitor and how Stalin is the greatest American patriot ever to walk the earth.

 

[The Mark]

The government is after the media because the media refuses to identify its source in this case. The media's argument is that it is vital they be allowed to maintain the anonymity of their sources because when dealing with government, sources are normally anonymous. Without anonymous sources, we would basically only have access to the official government line, and our media would be effectively no better than state-run media like they have in China.

The government's counter-argument is something like, "But we don't like it when people find stuff out that we're trying to hide, plus we can put you in prison if you don't cooperate." The idea that sensitive military or national-security level intelligence is somehow being handed over to the enemy is nonsense, unless you count the American People as part of the 'enemy.' If the information led to the failure of a specific military operation (which hasn't happened) then you can prosecute that one person for that one incident. Not make a whole new law about how anyone who betrays a government cover-up is a traitor and how Stalin is the greatest American patriot ever to walk the earth.

I partially agree with both arguements.

It is indeed vital to the media that they protect their sources, or else they may loose or never get other sources.

However, the arguement that vital military or other secret information could be comprimised is also a valid arguement. The American people are not considered the enemy, but there are those living among the American people who are. It would seem obvious that if information could harm america or it's soldiers overseas, it should not be released to the general public or the media, as there is then absoloutly nothing preventing it from getting into the hands of our enemies.

It is also a valid point that some things that do not need to be classified could be. But IMHO, no leakage of classified information should be allowed.

 

[FallingPianos]

Has anyone noticed that, if someone speaks up about certain things, they are called racist, sexist, anti-gay, etc, etc, etc, by various news agencies, political lobbiests, and politicians,

yes, what do you expect? those organizations/people have the freedom of speech as well.

are forced to retract those statements, or go down in flames?

so what if they are? as long as its not the government doing the forcing, the 1st amendment doesnt apply, nor should it.