Where does free speech end and personal choice begin?
Do publishers have the right to control their newspaper’s content except for libelous, slanderous or language that incites violence against an individual or group?
Ought the fear of losing advertising revenue justify, or become a factor deciding what is or isn’t printed in the newspaper?
And what about free speech at high schools and colleges/universities? Should a school newspaper be allowed to print anything it wishes? Should school newspaper columnists and article writers be allowed to express themselves (e.g., Christian college newspaper columnist writing that casual sex is okay)?
With all the speech codes on campuses in this country it's a wonder anyone can say anything.
And that has been a bone of contention at various schools. Writers believe they should have free speech.
Writers do have free speech. However, no one is required to give them free access to their computers for writing it or their printers and paper for producing it. If they are so compelled, they can begin their own paper.
So many people get confused with free speech and public ownership of the airwaves. Free speech means you can say (practically) anything you want and the government won't haul you away. It doesn't mean that a newspaper or radio station has to give you free space or time.
The basis of this entire argument is in the definition of "freedom of speech".
Does freedom of speech mean freedom from the natural consequences of your actions in writing or publishing a particular story? Or does it simply mean freedom from government persecution for writing or publishing a particular story.
I have freedom of speech. But if I start printing really nasty stuff about my employer on the internet, and my employer finds out about it, I will be fired. Ergo, despite my "freedom of speech" I will suffer the consequences of my actions.
The same is true of editors, publishers, writers, etc., who publish articles that are counter to the principals of the advertisers that support them. True, the government cannot throw them in jail for publishing an article, but their advertisers have the right to stop advertising with them. And the editors-in-chief have the right to take ation to keep the advertisers happy, up to, and including firing the writer/editor responsible for the offending article.
Or do you argue that advertisers must continue to advertise with newspapers that they no longer wish to advertise with in perpetuity, just to maintain freedom of the press? Clearly that's not a reasonable requirement.
So I say that the "freedom of speech" guaranteed in the Constitution means freedom from goverment persecution. It does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of your actions.
kindj agrees: "Consequences?!?" How dare you imply that there might be negative consequences for negative actions. Why, you are starting to sound like a fascist!!
Well, I certainly hope so. Some of my best friends are benevolent fascists...
Linear Mode
