Journalists Mobilize Against Free Speech

American journalism once thought of itself as being inherently and institutionally pro free speech. Visitors to the Newseum, the media industry’s temple of self-glorification on Constitution Avenue in Washington, were once greeted with the First Amendment inscribed across 74 vertical feet of lofty marble. The Newseum has been closed since late 2019, its operators having discovered the hard way that the public doesn’t share the media’s heroic level of regard for itself.

The museum was an anachronism in more ways than one: The idea that journalists themselves look upon the constitutional right to free expression with quasi-religious awe is nearly as quaint as the idea the media could be the basis for a major D.C. tourist attraction. A publicly beloved press that earnestly believes in free speech now feels like it belongs to some fictive era of good feelings. These days, the American public distrusts the media more than it ever has.

Confronted with this crisis of legitimacy, today’s corporate media increasingly advances ideas that would delight would-be power trippers of any party—like establishing novel forms of government control over what you can see, read, and hear and identifying people with a broad range of unpopular or unapproved views as domestic terrorists. Public discourse is now a “conflict space” with social media serving as an “information warzone,” the public intellectual Peter W. Singer declared in an essay published a few days after the alternately scary and farcical riot on Capitol Hill, seamlessly adapting a framework of state-level physical violence to a discussion of constitutionally protected speech.

The 1798 Sedition Act is traditionally looked upon as a low point in the history of the early republic, single-handed proof that something like the First Amendment had been necessary in order to prevent the new United States from lapsing into European-style despotism.

Well, not anymore: On Jan. 14, the air still pungent with smoke from the smoldering Capitol , Notre Dame history professor Katlyn Marie Carter informed readers of the Washington Post that maybe the Act had an idea or two worth considering after all. Maybe the Sedition Act was actually a missed opportunity to make our democracy better through government censorship, especially when it came to the horror of rhetorical attacks on government office holders.

As others have said, liberals have no problem with freedom of speech, provided it agrees with them! When it doesn,'t, WATCH OUT. Douglas Murray, who unfortunately seems to have joined the nutters this week in equating lockdown with denial of freedom, nevertheless had a very good column regarding the very definition of 'liberalism'. He wrote: "the term 'liberal' lingers like a memory of a nobler instinct. In some countries it is attached to a party of the Left, sometimes to one of the Right. In America this shape-shifter of a term long-ago became a synonym for 'leftie'....before it became the most abused word in politics, the true liberal was a deeply recognisable type. The liberal mind – the liberal person – was discernible across party political boundaries. The tradition of David Hume and John Stuart Mill went deeper than day-to-day politics.

It was informed by a belief in individual freedom and a scepticism of authority. It also produced an ideal: a certain type of inquiring, tolerant mind which had a faith in people as well as ideas. It had confidence in the notion that open debate was necessary to establish the truth, a truth that might be quite different to contemporary orthodoxy, and that in a fair battle between ideas that were bad and ideas which were good, the bad ideas could not hope to win out.

How dead that instinct and the type of mind that had confidence in it now seems.

Anyone doubting that should spend five minutes on any social media platform. Look at the glee with which users are willing to advocate toleration for me but not for thee. "

have you verified that the source of the article is reputable and appropriate as a reference?

Freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility or freedom to say whatever the fuck you want. This is basic civics. Why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

If your speech is actual lies or propaganda that incites others to acts of violence or repression, then that SHOULD NOT be considered a right.

End of story.

[quote] Freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility or freedom to say whatever the fuck you want. This is basic civics. Why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. If your speech is actual lies or propaganda that incites others to acts of violence or repression, then that SHOULD NOT be considered a right. End of story.

No. Not end of story. Far from it.

You jusr gave an argument any despot would be happy to sign on to.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater has nothing to do with speaking about ideas or political differences. If you can not tell the difference then you need a real education in the First Amendment and in what happens under dictatatorships. You do not understand "basic civics" and you try to conflate different forms of speech.

Who will determine what is "lies and propaganda"? THe powers that be at the time? What is a "lie"? What is "propaganda"? All politics is some form of propaganda.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order to lose First Amendment protection as incitement, speech must be “directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.” That is not about ideas or political speech that are unpopular or even lies or propaganda. That is not about telling people to take back their government or any such exhortation to fellow citizens.

It must be clearly and distinctly urging criminal behavior in the immeduate present. As in "imminent". And it must be reality based.

We have truly failed to teach generations about the Constitution and its protections and freedoms.

With that understandning, if Trump told people to march up to Congress and break in and smash the building or otherwise commit criminal acts then that is not protected. It matters not if he lied or spewed propaganda. But that is not what you are advocating for.

This is how you lose your freedoms. In the guise of doing good.

Who decides what is "acceptable"?

>Freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility or freedom to say whatever the fuck you want.

Rachel Maddow says pretty much anything she wants (Russia Russia Russia!), without regard for its truthfulness, every night and doesn't ever seem to suffer any repercussions for it. I, in turn, am free to criticize what she says.

Isn't that the way it should be in a free society?

R7 WW for a well-reasoned post. But you neglected to put quotes around "doing good". Because that too is subjective.

[quote] Isn't that the way it should be in a free society?

MSNBC could fire her tomorrow for something she said, dingbat.

We live in a capitalist country. If a corporation wants to drop you, that’s their right.

Now do fuck off. F&F

OP posts all right-wing garbage. Go look for yourself. Flush this turd.

OP wrote:

Ha-ha! Some people still think the BLM movement was about protecting black people from "police brutality". It must be nice to be so naive. Do you still believe in Santa?

Wait for six months and you'll notice BLM has completely disappeared off the radar screen. Then, ask yourself why that has happened.

R9, thank you for the important reminder. I was exercised in R7 and getting more so day by day. I always forget to sign in.

r7, what your priggish blatherings amount to in the end is a sad defense for "alternative facts", and for nutjobs like Alex Jones and networks like OAN and NEWSMAX. So no need for the disingenuous rhetorical flourishes. Really, that's what this whole thread is about. There is one side - the demented right-wing realm of politicians and firebrands, abetted by cynical media networks - that's building a world of outlandish paranoia; a made-up universe of conspiracy theories that is stochastically inciting people to violence and you're all in. Got it.

"You jusr gave an argument any despot would be happy to sign on to."

Despots do as they please, as I'm sure you're well aware of - and only sign on to their own twisted view of how things should be. They don't wait for laws to empower them - they create their own rule of law.

"What is a "lie"?"

See, here you tip your hand. But I'm game. Here's an example of a lie - that Trump actually won the election in a landslide. Patently false. Also, that voting systems like Dominion and Smartmatic were flipping/tossing votes in favor of the Democrats. That's why Fox and Newsmax had to walk those claims back - they were going to get their asses sued. Another lie? That Democrats are a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.

All aimed at ginning up psychotic, actionable anger. As we saw in the attack on the Capitol.

"Rachel Maddow says pretty much anything she wants (Russia Russia Russia!), without regard for its truthfulness"

Present examples of her lies or shut the fuck up, Leonid.

[quote]Rachel Maddow says pretty much anything she wants (Russia Russia Russia!), without regard for its truthfulness

The part before the parentheses is thankfully true.

The part between the parentheses is just plain dumb.

The part after the parentheses is demonstrably a lie.

Interestingly, Mussollini was one such "journalist" before he became a totalitarian dictator...

Imagine being as lost and deranged as r13.

You want to live under a despot? You want the government to control yours and everyone else’s speech? You want the media conglomerates to have a stranglehold in information? Calling other posters “Leonid” when what you’re screeching for is pure Putin.

Can OP just die already?

"You want to live under a despot?"

Guess what dumbass. That WILL happen and not because of hypothetical guardrails on speech. We're headed full bore towards it now. 74 million people were lusting after a dictator when they voted for Trump. And he tried every which way to overturn the election and consolidate power. What *you're* going on about is abstract in this moment.

There is no bigger advocate for censorship in the US today than Donald J. Trump.

Even SCOTUS said that the first amendment doesn't mean you are free to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre.

The issue is whether inciting sedition is screaming fire.

No one has the guaranteed right to say what they want on Twitter or Facebook.

The Constitution does not protect speech made on a private platform.

Most liberals aren’t.

Read Glenn Greenwald's latest twitter posting. He said that in the weeks running up tot the election Facebook and Twitter united to block authentic reporting about the Bidens from the NY Post and other outlets.

"Read Glenn Greenwald's latest twitter posting"

I stopped reading right there. That queen is certifiably insane.

Glenn Greenwald is a crank and a liar. No one should be using "Glenn Greenwald said" as proof of anything.

If claiming an election was stolen should be criminalized, there sure are a lot of suspects at Democratic Underground, where it was an article of faith between 2004 and 2016 that Diebold election software was designed to elect Republicans. In their parlance to lose a close election was to be Diebolded. Diebold was bought out by Dominion years ago.

Diebold site:democraticunderground.com

“If claiming an election was stolen should be criminalized”

Yeah, but that didnt cause the outgoing President to fund volatile rallies and whipping up psychotic mobs into a frenzy that ended in the desecration of the Capitol and the potential lynching of elected officials.

Plus, that is one fringe outlet. 75% of all republicans and their ass-licking media machines propagated a lie that could’ve overturned a lawful election.

Terrible terrible comparison.

[quote] "Rachel Maddow says pretty much anything she wants (Russia Russia Russia!), without regard for its truthfulness" Present examples of her lies or shut the fuck up, Leonid.

Sorry, R13. You've confused me with another poster. That wasn't my quote. But seriously if you're going to give me a Russian name it could at least be Natasha or something pretty. Leonid is so 1970s.

[quote] No one has the guaranteed right to say what they want on Twitter or Facebook. The Constitution does not protect speech made on a private platform.

That is censorship nonetheless. Whether it is speech protected by the First Amendment or not is another matter. First Amendment common law, just like many areas of law, is constantly evolving. Unless you're a Scalia or Thomas strict constructionist.

[quote] As others have said, liberals have no problem with freedom of speech, provided it agrees with them!

Those aren't real liberals, then. Those are faux liberals (R6 is an example of this type). Unfortunately, they seem to be predominant now.

The Echo Chamber Era, by Matt Tiabbi

This has been an ongoing theme of coverage in the Trump years: hyping a threat for a news cycle or two, then moving to the next panic as the basis for the first one dissipates. How many headlines were aimed at our outrage centers in the last four years that were quietly memory-holed, once they’d outlived their political utility? We read dozens of stories before the election warning that Russia was already interfering in the 2020 election. A smattering of New York Times headlines alone:

Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump

Russia Continues Interfering in Election to Try to Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Says

‘Chaos Is the Point’: Russian Hackers and Trolls Grow Stealthier in 2020

F.B.I. Warns of Russian Interference in 2020 Race and Boosts Counterintelligence Operations

Putin Most Likely Directing Election Interference to Aid Trump, C.I.A. Says

[quote]As others have said, liberals have no problem with freedom of speech, provided it agrees with them! When it doesn,'t, WATCH OUT.

Yeah, I'll think about that as the President Trump called foe Colin K. to be fired for silently kneeling in protest. You stupid fucking cunt.

Yeah, I'll think about it as the democratic votes of the MAJORITY of American people were attacked by the right-wing and Trump because they LOST. You stupid fucking cunt.

as President Trump called for*

Right-wingers have no fucking idea what "free speech" is - let's start there as to what idiots you all are. What a genuinely stupid group of people who have no clue WTF they are talking about. None. You're embarrassing beyond belief. Trump is a fucking liar and he has literally cost people their lives over his lies. He -as the govt- wanted to silence people. Wanted people fired for telling the truth. People were getting death threats because they spoke up against his lies. THAT is an infringement of free speech.

Bari Weiss works at the OP's shit site - that's all you need to know what bullshit it is. If anyone knows about trying to silence people with whom she disagrees, it's that asshole.

flush

In their new-found enthusiasm, these free-speech absolutists have conveniently forgotten about how the previous occupant of the Oval Office demanded that libel laws be loosened (to make it easier for him to sue, i.e. actively involve the government against, people who are mean to him online). Or how he repeatedly referred to the (non-Fox) media as "the enemy of the people," with not-so-subtle hints that journalists should be physically attacked. Or how he threatened to hold up a defense spending bill because it didn't include a repeal of Section 230.

That last episode occurred just [italic]last month[/italic].

Such short memories the Trump cultists have.

[quote] If your speech is actual lies or propaganda that incites others to acts of violence or repression, then that SHOULD NOT be considered a right. End of story.

Yet the media loves to inflame racial tension by making every negative interaction between people of differing races into a race war then they get to run off and cover the protests/riots that ensue for ratings. Hey, who gives a shit if some poor (even black) bastards' business that they've poured everything into goes up in smoke or gets looted twice in one week? Who cares if innocent people die or end up vegetables because the media has stirred up tension and now people think it's okay to beat the shit out of someone just because they're white/black/Jewish/Asian/whatever? The media's got a job to do, fellas!

The media loves to lie. Why do you think Americans have less faith in the media than they do even congress?

Oh, and R36. Let's NOT go down that road, honey....

R34's heroes.

R34, that's how fucking dumb you people truly are. Truly dumb. Embarrassingly dumb.

R39 was for R38. You're too stupid to understand what actual censorship is vs scapegoating - which is what Trump DID.

How funny that r38 would display a photo of J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn as a "rebuttal" against someone who rightly points out the difference between "censorship" and what's happening to Nazis on places like Twitter and Facebook.

Roy Cohn was, of course, Donald Trump's mentor - and taught him everything he knows about how to "win" by relentlessly attacking, lying, and threatening to sue critics into oblivion.

*I meant "Joe McCarthy", not J. Edgar Hoover. The other person is indisputably Roy Cohn though - and he worked for both.

it should be against WILLFUL LIES AND HATE SPEECH from whomever and wherever...it's NOT a difference of opinion or a different point of view on doing things, it's WILLFULLY ON PURPOSE LYING AGAINST FACTS AND TRUTH that is the problem!

OP, should it be perfectly legal for someone to say - either online, or in a newspaper or on TV - that you are a pedophile cannibal?

If not, why not?

Corporate media are billionaire-owned.

And the rich have always understood that Freedom of Speech is dangerous to themselves.

It is why the first to be silenced by tyrants are the poets.

[quote]it's WILLFULLY ON PURPOSE LYING AGAINST FACTS AND TRUTH that is the problem!

Who decides the truth? The Feds?

In your opinion: is it OK to question the official story about the JFK assassination or 9/11?

The fact you don't even know know who Joe McCarthy is, R41, explains it all.

R4 thinks freedom of speech means "Everyone has a constitutional right to a Twitter account"

It's right-wingers who want to sue twitter because of people making fun of them - ask Devin Nunes.

R47 probably doesn't know much about history, probably one of those people who think a Twitter account is a right and not a privilege. Believe it or not, people were able to express their thoughts before Twitter existed

R37 thinks acknowledging that racism exists is enflaming tensions....but not a wannabe dictator lying about election fraud so he can remain in power

R48 I'm not the one you're wasting your life arguing with (nothing better to do with it I guess) but one could just as easily say people were able to express their thoughts before phones were invented as an excuse to ban gays from having a phone.

It's 2021. Having a social media presence is expected. Those who don't have it are looked upon with suspicion.

R49 thinks calling everyone racist somehow brings unity to the races.

Plus the left just spent four years claiming election fraud because their old girl didn't win just like they claimed election fraud for all eight years of Bush's presidency. But now suddenly doing so is an act of terrorism. If not for double standards, the left would have none.

[quote]probably doesn't know much about history, probably one of those people who think a Twitter account is a right and not a privilege. Believe it or not, people were able to express their thoughts before Twitter existed

Was having a phone a right or a privilege? How about electricity? Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against customers they disagree with? Opinions, sexuality, race?

If Trump had been rightfully "censored" for his birtherism, racism and bigotry years ago, he wouldn't have been given the oxygen to spread such repugnant views and democracy and fair elections wouldn't have been under attack by Fascists.

[quote]Plus the left just spent four years claiming election fraud because their old girl

Show me the hundred House Democrats in Congress who signed onto lawsuits or attempts to overturn the election. Show me the Dem Senators who stood up in Congress to contest another state's EC. Conjecture do not count, you douchebag.

WORDS do not equate to storming the Capitol by the thousands to KILL MoC and the VP because Hillary didn't win, you POS.

Your conjecture does not count*

Everyone F&F OP. He’ll get banned.

This is an issue that will have to be discussed.

The Australian Government is demanding an end to Google and other 'social media' stealing from newspapers and paying almost NIL tax..

The American Government will have to do the same.

Um, R53, that birtherism was started by your queen Hillary's campaign who sent that photo of Obama in Muslim garb to the Drudge Report knowing he'd jump on it.

It was also Hillary's husband who said that a couple of years earlier Obama would have been fetching them coffee.

Hill and Bill were and still are hillbillies. Why do keep excusing their bigotry and racism?

R57, read you retard.

Snopes?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

R58 Her campaign fucking admitted it!

Trump has a response President to tell the truth. He never did. Telling people to take their country back and “fight like hell” over a “fraudulent election” that he knows if bullshit....that’s not freedom of speech. That is treason.

R61 Too bad you don't feel the same way about everyone who runs for president.

I get the temptation to support suppression of free speech when it's on our side but I'm wary of the slippery slope given how horrifically wrong the mainstream media has been about things before. Never forget that the media by and large supported the Iraq invasion and helped shut down any dissent. I'm talking about outlets like wapo and NYT, not just Fox. These people mocked Al Gore relentlessly and helped end Howard Deans campaign with their juvenile obssession over an enthusiastic yelp.They fixated over Hilary's e mails and giggled about Trump as if he were an adorable court jester. I hate the alt right but don't really trust mainstream outlets to gatekeep either.

FF, then put this shithead on ignore. Do not respond to this cockroach fascist.

R61 get out of here you fat ugly, frau. We all smell your nasty snatch.

Joe Biden is a drooling idiot with dementia, and Kamala is not African-American. If you disagree, that's hate speech and you should be cancelled!

Hey, I'm beginning to like these new rules. Sign me up!

R44, There are slander and libel laws extant.

R64, Nothing any President does, from today to the 12th of Never, will compare to Trump’s criminality, ignorance, racism, and treason.

Oh, and lies.

You so realise that Gay Rights and Women’s Rights and Black Rights were all unpopular positions and all were gained because of Freedom of Speech. Why is Freedom of speech being defended by the Right anyway? This should be a universal right. This is something people all over the world admire America for. Yet you don’t want to defend it ?

[quote]Why is Freedom of speech being defended by the Right anyway?

They aren't defending it. You're not American, so allow me to explain to you what Freedom of Speech actually means in this country and who is actually violating the right to it: A private company sets rules. When you violate those rules, they ban you. That is not a violation of free speech.

A violation of free speech is when you silently kneel in protest of injustice and the president of the US says you should be fired for it. And you essentially are fired for it because no NFL team will hire you.

Sidenote: Meanwhile, as was pointed out on SM, Tom Brady is a HUGE Trump supporter and yet liberals never called for him to be "fired" for it. Most athletes are Republicans and no one calls for them to be fired.

Actually, r72, it refers to government prosecution of said speech. Trump running his mouth doesn’t count legally or constitutionally. George Bush blasted Roseanne for her national anthem debacle calling her un-American. Also, the kneeling was seen as obscene because it was during the National Anthem, not because of who he supported politically. They are free to fire whomever they want. I don’t agree with anyone saying kneeling is un-patriotic, but you have a few facts wrong and drawing incorrect parallels.

TRY AGAIN OP.