I thought we had a constitution in america that allows freedom of speach and of the press .?

Question

reporters have gone to jail in order to protect a source its like talking to your priest .IF you do not have people with a sudden crisis of conscience realize what they are involved in is wrong and do the right thing and report it to someone then we would never of had watergate or numerous other crimes against america reported.THE press is the peoples watch dog over government and if the dog has no bark or bite it is useless.strip our free press and america is doomed.ANN collter or however you spell her name is wrong and treason was in no way commited by any of the papers that ran the story. HOW close is the police state today i fear for america and the conservative strangle hold on america we must break free from this oppression before it is to late .

Answer 1

EXACTLY!!!

There is a story circulating right now about the Bush administration, ONCE AGAIN, violating privacy laws by getting access to all banking/financial transactions; although, they claim to have only looked at international transactions. They have the authority to do this BUT not until they go before a judge and get approval. Of course with Bush not believing in the consitution, he did not do that = broke the law AGAIN!!

Now, to counter this Bush has been bombarding talk radio and Fox News (even saw an upset guy on pbs The Newshour yesterday about it) with propaganda that does not explain the entire story as I did in the first paragraph.

Their defense is we are in a 'war on terror'. So, basically because we are in a war on terror, they believe they can ignore all the laws and ppl's right to privacy, etc...

So, as you stated... with them attacking the press for reporting this story.. there goes freedom of speech and the press.

Btw, the laws about a reporter revealing his/her source are very vague. A reporter does have the right to tell his/her source but most don't because that hinders ppl from wanting to tell them things later. I personally think that if someone tells a reporter something and the act of telling is in itself breaking the law then the reporter SHOULD be required to tell his/her source. IE, this Carl Rove thing about the CIA agent leak. We all know he was behind that but the reporter won't tell.

Answer 2

Well I'm not sure how old you are, but over the last 50 years I have seen that every time that the constitution get in the way of politicians, they do everything from making new amendments to hte constitution, and even start making new definitions of the wording in it. Look at your right to bear arms during the Clinton years.Look at it now that NAFTA has been in acted. Our rights are supposed to be inalienable, that means (can not be taken or given away), but that does not seem to stop that from happening. Look at the voting process, What do you think started the first shot being fired in the last American Revolution, ( the British came to take our guns) If you really want our constitution back we will have to take it by force, have you ever known a tax to be repealed, or prices go down, or a politician, or bureaucrat to be held accountable. We have let our government sell our souls to the U.N. and our lively hoods are in the hands of corporations, that give our jobs and technology to other country's, all for personal greed and power,not for the average US citizen. Good luck I wish you well in your life time. P.S remember debter's prisons?

Answer 3

As has been said many times before, freedom of speech does not mean that you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. No freedom spelled out in the constitution is unlimited, and most of them are not even taught correctly in school. If someone incites seditious behavior, then they are violating other rights just as important as speech if not more so. The idea that the "press" is some kind of watchdog is rhetorical nonsense. You can complain about politicians all day long, but if you leak information related to national security or just plain lie, that is no longer free press, it becomes sedition, slander, or worse.

Answer 4

The press does have the right to print any verifiable news story it chooses. I personally think it was in bad taste for the New York Times to print a story detailing an intelligence tactic we use to safeguard our country and tract terrorists, but I do feel it was within their right to do so. It is also in our government and law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute illegal leaks of information that the Times acquired its information from. Just as the FBI would have a right and obligation to investigate possible child molesters or murderers. If the FBI and court system subpoena information from a reporter, and they protect the source, which gave them that information illegally, that's their choice, and they should be prepared for the consequences.

Answer 5

The Constitution is a dusty old piece of paper. Pretty much useless now. it's a cryin' shame.

I am amazed that we can get some kind of real news from the BBC. At least for now.

Do you remember the summer before 9/11? Our news reports consisted of shark bites, a boy who was too old for little league baseball and the disappearance of Gary Condit's girlfriend. then BAM! The attack. I had wondered all summer why were they hiding the news from us. I found out on 9/11.

Answer 6

Well, this is a refreshing change form the norm. I received mails from someone when I defended Ann in reply to one of the Q's with the freedom of press quote.

I did mention that Americans are hypocrites in this matter in that answer because there are different yardsticks as far freedoms for other nations are considered vis-a-vis the freedoms to Americans in their own country.

Looking at this Q, I have to partly take back that allegation. Glad that somebody agrees that the press must be free and acts as the conscience of the nation.

Keep it up!
st

Answer 7

The press is the dog. They do not report to protect us, they report for the Pulitzer or extra points in ratings. There are ways to turn in wrongdoers that do not include liars printing it on the front page. Cindy Sheehan is a publicity hunter not the grieving mother she pretends & every news person knows it. She has not even paid for or seen her son's grave in over 2 years. But her smiling face gets seen weekly on news? I am the mother of a U S Army Lt. & Ranger - shame on them all. No police state here or you would be picked up weeks ago.

Answer 8

Having the right to print something doesn't mean that it is right to do it. You are right, however, that the Times is not guilty of treason. The person who leaked the information, however, is guilty of leaking classified information.

Why would you print a story that will cost American lives by comprimising an unquestionably legal proccess, that is valuable because of its secrecy.

Do you beleive that there should be no such thing as classified information?

Answer 9

Yes, we have an absolute right to freedom of speech and the press. Conservatives, however, are so frightened and paranoid that they are eagerly handing over our rights for an illusion of security.

Plus, the leaks about the Bush administration have been exposing their criminal wrongdoing. Of course they want to muzzle the people's watchdogs.

Answer 10

...it does. It does not however protect irresponsibility. My point would be the latest leaking about the financial tracking of terrorists...the editors can always choose to run the story, even to the detriment of our country as a whole, but the government can choose to prosecute the editors for putting every ones life at risk. it may not be a pleasant choice but it still is one.