At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
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?
Advertisers have the same right to exercise their freedoms as the newspaper's ownership retains their right to publish what they choose. I also retain my right to patronize and /or editorialize for or against any published content ;and if need be ,withhold my patronage of an advertiser who supports the newspaper .
newspapers, like most other forms of media, need to be seen as what they are: businesses that exist to make a profit. this means they are swayed by public interests and private interests. anyone who buys a paper and thinks its an unbiased source of info is a little naive. its human nature... we dont see things through perfectly objective eyes.
degrees of "free speech" and personal choice exist together, not apart. as long as you understand that personal choices affect most all writing, then you know its not one or the other. every bit of writing has a likely angle, slant, bias, etc.
the writing and interpretation of laws concerning things like incendiary writings are made from biased people with biased opinions. we elect people to write laws that reflect our views (hopefully). people get appointed to the courts that reflect our views (hopefully). what is "tolerated" and "allowed" comes from a society that places restrictions on what is acceptable.
so.... where does perfect freedom of speech begin? whats your interpretation of this... the right to say whatever you want without threat of punishment? as long as you live in a community that write rules and laws, that thrives by the prosperity of the dollar or any other communal interest, you just arent going to get some utopian free speech.
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)?
Tom, let’s take your proposition…[ownership retains their right to publish what they choose.] and apply it to a real life situation.
An editor made criticisms of a political candidate, and the publisher let them go on that basis. Now it occurs to me that that nullifies entirely the whole reason for a free press.
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)?
It is not up to columnist to develop story or content ideas. It is up to the editor to follow editorial policy, and publishing requirements.
First, under the First Amendment, Free Speech refers only to a prohibition against the government enacting laws that would inhibit that right. The First Amendment does not, nor was it intended to curtail the right of a private entity to curtail what someone can say using that entity's premises. So, for example, the owners of this site have the right to remove content they feel is objectionable.
Since a newspaper, magazine or other media outlet is a private company, they also have the right to choose what they decide to publish. Freedom of the press, again refers to the government being prevented from forcing such decisions on the media.
Some papers have independent editorial boards . The Wall Street Journal comes to mind as a clear example of this with their news content decidedly more liberal than their editorial content . But ,I do not think that will last long with Rupert Murdoch taking control of the paper .Neither would Joseph Pulitzer or William Randolph Hearst surrendered the content of their publications to an independent editorial board I surmise.
I also look back in history for examples and as I have mentioned many times ;the founders would publish papers for the purpose that it would be forums for their editorial priorities . Perhaps they were not as concerned about financing the paper on their own or turning a profit . But it just stands to reason that a paper needs to be sold . Integrity of content has been a selling point (as the NY Slimes jive suggests) ,but it has to pass the scrutiny test to be viable .
Linear Mode
