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 naïve. Its human nature... we don't 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? What's 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 aren't 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.

Political Mavens » What a free press means (http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/11/01/what-a-free-press-means/)

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.

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.

And that has been a bone of contention at various schools. Writers believe they should have free speech.

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 .

And that has been a bone of contention at various schools. Writers believe they should have free speech.
Maybe I’m mistaken here but as my memory serves me the whole concept of free speech was founded on the idea of ‘freedom to criticize government’.

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 (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/topic/11) 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.

It appears that Rachel Raskin, the author of the article

Political Mavens » What a free press means (http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/11/01/what-a-free-press-means/)

Fails the Bull Test.

http://www.fightthebull.com/resources/bull_small.jpg

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 government persecution. It does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of your actions.

Elliot

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...

Elliot