Your opinion-Does bias and hate speech by a community newspaper ...

w8liftinglady

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:43 AM
Original message

Your opinion-Does bias and hate speech by a community newspaper ...

Edited on Thu May-06-10 11:44 AM by w8liftinglady

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HiFructosePronSyrup

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message

1. Of course it does.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

w8liftinglady

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. Should we then cease contacting advertisers when we find topics offensive?Just curious...

as I have done so with many advertisers-Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh to state a few.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HiFructosePronSyrup

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #3

6. I don't see why.

Our right to boycott is just as protected by the 1st as their right to hate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

foxfeet

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:46 AM
Response to Original message

2. Yes. But we don't have to buy the paper or advertise in it.

Fishwrap, birdcage liner, toilet paper, or mulch. Take your pick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

w8liftinglady

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #2

8. they list all the local arrests-that tells a lot about the area(ethnicity of arrestees)

http://www.elliscountypress.com/news/154/ARTICLE/6280/2010-04-23.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sinkingfeeling

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:47 AM
Response to Original message

4. Yes, it's protected by the 1st. If the paper was activiely calling for armed rebellion, I might

think differently.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

w8liftinglady

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #4

10. oh-like this?

http://www.elliscountypress.com/news/132/ARTICLE/4350/2009-08-12.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:47 AM
Response to Original message

5. If not, describe the method by which you'd stop it.

Does the mayor get to edit the paper?

Do people vote on who gets to publish a newspaper?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

w8liftinglady

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #5

12. the editor is also running for public office in Midlothian

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kalyke

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message

7. This is pretty borderline.

The first article wasn't an article - it was an opinion from some local attorney, so I'll leave that one aside.

Yes: these articles (the ones I read to get a picture) clearly only show one side of an issue, but, Faux "News" has proven that it must be perfectly acceptable and legal.

The only avenue you might be able to take is to make an appointment with your area's federal judge and/or FBI and simply ask them. They might be able to give you some insight into when free speech becomes hate speech.

The only other thing you could do is start your own newspaper and report on stories with more accuracy and including more than just one side.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sarge43

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message

9. Yes.

It's bad enough that corporations control much of our media. If the government also does so, game over.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

X_Digger

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 11:58 AM
Response to Original message

11. As long as they pass the Brandenburg standard, yes.

Edited on Thu May-06-10 11:59 AM by X_Digger

Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Intent, likelihood, and imminence- those are the three tests that the Brandenburg standard sets. Speech that doesn't have all three is protected.

eta: text of the decision- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=444

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

w8liftinglady

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #11

13. how would you rate this editorial piece?

http://www.elliscountypress.com/news/132/ARTICLE/4350/2009-08-12.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

X_Digger

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #13

14. Let me give that a light fisking..

Edited on Thu May-06-10 12:29 PM by X_Digger

Remember, to disqualify as protected speech, you have to find all three-Intent, Likehood, Imminence..

Here are some selected excerpts..

Now, with Congress in recess and elected representatives less than a stone�s throw away, the public is exploding.

"Is exploding", not "should explode", not "must explode", etc. I don't see intent, personally.

Nevertheless, Washington will continue to intervene, tax and exert control. Protests will escalate and riots will follow.

Again, I don't see the incitement to riot (intent).

A false flag attempt, a genuine crisis, or a declaration of war, may slow the momentum of the �Second American Revolution,� but nothing will stop it.

No intent that I can read. Speaks to likelihood ("nothing will stop it") but likelihood of something without expressed intent is just a prediction. Nothing in the linked article that I noticed shows clear intent, much less imminence.

eta: yes, it's teabagger masturbatory crap, but to me, it doesn't cross the line.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BlueInMass

(34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-06-10 12:34 PM
Response to Original message

15. You do not have to like it or read it...

But it is absolutely protected. I see bias, but you are making a reach with hate speech. People are too quick to throw around extreme words like Racist and Hate Speech when they don't apply. There will be enough situations where these terms apply, so keep the words strong in meaning by using them only when they really are appropriate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 12th 2024, 09:49 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.