Kids believe Press Should be More Restricted

[DiamondDust]

Say what you want about the press, but this story scares me quite a bit:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto.../usstudentssaypressfreedomsgotoofar&printer=1

There's a reason Freedom of Speech/Press/Religion/Assembly is the 1st Amendment.

 

[Pachydermatous]

What can you say? I'll bet if adults were polled the result would be the same, or greater.

To what degree would restrictions apply? Would it include this multitude of magazines and supermarket tabloids which assail our sensibilities in checkout lines? Does it cover both the TV Guide and the Wall Street Journal? Political restrictions only? Editorials only or choice of stories? Most daily newspapers nowadays have web versions. What about them?

I think the guy who confected this poll left a lot of blanks unfilled.

 

[wisten]

Polls are easy to elicit the result you want.

Let's say we all decide that we want Auburn to be named the Greatest Collegiate Sports Program in the Universe, and we form a poll, submitted to those with a vested interest...

1) Do you think that Alabama should not accept the championship award even when it is presented?

2) In spite of the combined rich tradition of other schools in the SEC, it is your opinion that Alabama does not deserve the awards it has achieved?

3) With Alabama's claims to National Championships, though Alabama claims less than the NCAA claims for Alabama, do you feel that Alabama should take a less proactive role in claiming National Championships?

It gets murky. Discombobulated, even. But easy to focus your poll to garner the results you want. Hence Aubies.

 

[NYBamaFan]

More than anything, this is a result of the abuses of the free press in the past 10 years. They can (and do) lie and get away with it as long as the lie cannot be proven to have been intentional. We simply need to force the press to stop this practice, or in some way have it limited by changing or adding to current libel protections...

 

[DiamondDust]

Since a "slippery slope" defense is being brought up here, I must ask...

Would you all support the same restrictions and regulations on the 2nd Amendment? I know there are restrictions that exists, but if you support restrictions and regulations on the 1st, would you support them on the 2nd?

 

[NYBamaFan]

I hope that we are not discussing the possibility of some day limiting the freedom of the press. That would prove disastrous. We should simply hold them accountable when they purposely create false reports. We should also hold them accountable when they purposely tell only half the story. Freedom of the press should not extend to allowing an entire paper to read like the editorial pages. News and opinion should be clearly separated...

 

[Pachydermatous]

More than anything, this is a result of the abuses of the free press in the past 10 years. They can (and do) lie and get away with it as long as the lie cannot be proven to have been intentional. We simply need to force the press to stop this practice, or in some way have it limited by changing or adding to current libel protections...

The so-called law of libel is not a law which can be lessened or increased by legislatures. It is simply a string of civil court decisions for or against newspapers and broadcast media, which are assumed to produce a pattern but sometimes yields just confusion. It is a very flexible concept, and these court decisions often change from era to era, sometimes for partisan reasons.

For example, in my youth a news story was considered protected from libel if it simply told the truth. Later courts found this insufficient. What if you dig into someone's background, find a dirty tidbit by a private person from years ago, and apropos of nothing spread it across the front page? Now the definition changes: the story must not only be truthful, but it must also be published with "justifiable motives and with good intent."

Okay, I can live with that, It really doesn't curb my freedom one whit. If I feel like being unjustifiable and full of lousy intent I can still let fly with both barrels. I just have to live with the civil consequences. Private persons can keep their privacy unless they do something to bring themselves into public notice (run for office maybe). Public persons have to take more guff, but they still have the right to sue for libel or slander (oral libel).

Now comes the U.S. Supreme Court with its own change. During the civil rights hoorah of the 1960s, the Montgomery police commissioner sued and won against the New York TImes and the SCLC for an ad they ran against him which was loaded with plain libel. No doubt about it. The high court did a backflip, saying basically that public persons are really, truly different and suits against them must meet a higher standard. They must prove the person committing the libel did it knowing it was false, was warned the material was libelous, yet published it anyway with reckless disregard. How would you like to perform a mind-reading stunt like that in court?

And I believe the "law of libel" will change yet again in a different era and a different court.

 

[Bamalaw92]

The so-called law of libel is not a law which can be lessened or increased by legislatures. It is simply a string of civil court decisions for or against newspapers and broadcast media, which are assumed to produce a pattern but sometimes yields just confusion. It is a very flexible concept, and these court decisions often change from era to era, sometimes for partisan reasons.

This is not entirely correct. The legislature can indeed pass laws that change the common law. It happens every day. They cannot, however change the freedon of speech or the freedom of the press without a Constitutional Amendment.

For example, in my youth a news story was considered protected from libel if it simply told the truth. Later courts found this insufficient. What if you dig into someone's background, find a dirty tidbit by a private person from years ago, and apropos of nothing spread it across the front page? Now the definition changes: the story must not only be truthful, but it must also be published with "justifiable motives and with good intent."

Not sure where you get that from, but in Alabama at least, truth is an absolute defense.

Okay, I can live with that, It really doesn't curb my freedom one whit. If I feel like being unjustifiable and full of lousy intent I can still let fly with both barrels. I just have to live with the civil consequences. Private persons can keep their privacy unless they do something to bring themselves into public notice (run for office maybe). Public persons have to take more guff, but they still have the right to sue for libel or slander (oral libel).

Now comes the U.S. Supreme Court with its own change. During the civil rights hoorah of the 1960s, the Montgomery police commissioner sued and won against the New York TImes and the SCLC for an ad they ran against him which was loaded with plain libel. No doubt about it. The high court did a backflip, saying basically that public persons are really, truly different and suits against them must meet a higher standard. They must prove the person committing the libel did it knowing it was false, was warned the material was libelous, yet published it anyway with reckless disregard. How would you like to perform a mind-reading stunt like that in court?

This has become known as the Sullivan test.

And I believe the "law of libel" will change yet again in a different era and a different court.

I agree