Should we allow our government to decide when free speech and honest and thorough reporting are allowed?

Question

Or are we talking about fundamentally guaranteed Constitutional rights? Does our government already make these decisions for us?

Answer 1

I don't understand your question?

Fox news fired a reporter because she refused to put a lie in the news, here superiors fired her and did it anyway. She brought them to court.

The judge ruled that it is OK for the media to lie, even when they know it's a lie!

Answer 2

I will defend the right of free speech till I die, but that does mean I will use it to harm this country. There are some things that just don't need to be broadcast around the world. This whole thing about terrorist funding being shown to the entire world is nothing new. The media and government never get along during wartime. At least Bush isn't Lincoln. If he were, The New York Times editor-in-chief would have been locked up with no trial faster than you could say due process. People in the position of telling news need to think about the ramifications of their actions. The current story allows the terrorists, and the people who help fund them, find new ways around the efforts being made by America to stop them.

Answer 3

Free Speech comes with the responsibility to be responsible. The Media critized the Bush admin for not "preventing" 9/11 but when they expose covert intelligence gathering operations under the guise of "the public has a right to know" they actually undermine the governments chances to prevent the next 9/11! The press needs act responsibly too! The Constitution only created 3 Branches of Government the Press is not the 4th Branch!

Answer 4

No We are talking about National Security. We are fighting muslim extremest who would slice your head off in a minute! The President was tracking financial transactions that terrorist and their supporters make. Someone in the government leaked it to the New York Times. The President asked them not to write it up but they did anyway! Now you can fight the terrorist any way you can or you can forget about 911 and all the other attacks made on Americans and wait for the next 911. I don't agree with the President on everything, I voted for him and would again. he has been doing a great job with the war on terror. The libleft media and the kerry's and murtha's of the world have been fighting him all the way. in my opinion before they would let him succeed they would rather have us attacked again! Wasn't 3000 Americans dead in one day enough for you people??
I don't care how the President gets his info. as long as he is doing the best he can to protect this GREAT NATION!
P.S. If youv'e noticed the reporters don't do much reporting, they do the judging and tell the story to fit their LEFT WING AGENDA!

Answer 5

There are cases where free speech can be harmful. This is, generally, when speech is used unethically.

If you're talking about the U.S. government getting angry about the news media revealing that the administration destroyed the cover of an intelligence agent that it didn't agree with, spied on millions of Americans' communication and financial activities, arrested countless foreign nationals for little cause, held them without charge, and transported them to places where torture is acceptable, then, I think the reporters are doing their jobs and doing them well, using speech that is guaranteed to them so that we can see what our representatives are doing in our name.

The news agencies have done nothing, so far, that would endanger troops in the field, or hamper reasonable, ethical, intelligence gathering.

Answer 6

properly, the form is paper. Plus, it would desire to be that YA is censoring itself (type of a 'not decrease than government jurisdiction' kinda deal.). i'm decrease than the effect that the form is paper. It does not safeguard squat. occasion: Democrats thought that Bush stole the election. The regulation probable ought to've prevented that. Republicans thought that Obama became born in Kenya. regulation probable ought to've prevented that. it would seem that the regulation is asleep on the wheel or on the marketplace or some thing. If somebody desires to commence a version of R/S the place the baby gloves are off and persons are easily allowed freespeech, by ability of all ability, bust it out and let us know. the closest we've is R/S chat, a yahoo team that i've got by no ability visited, for one excuse or yet another.

Answer 7

I don't know....would you expect protection if a demonic cult whom you felt threatened by was gathered together at the public park where your kids often play-there's your freedom of assembly and religion....
Would you feel threatened if your son(or brother) was on a secret mission to combat terrorism and a reporter accidentally gave a little to much info on CNN about this mission and your brothers identity....just enough to jeopardize him and everything he is trying to accomplish-there's your freedom of press
These are just two of many many examples of how our first amendment can backfire....at times I feel as if we as Americans have too much freedom......

Answer 8

Free speech ends when public safety is endangered. It's the same standard as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building. Divulging the nation's security secrets is NOT free speech. It benefits no one but our enemies.

Answer 9

I think when it becomes slander or subversion yes, I don't think most people in the media especially don't have the brain capacity to not write about everything, they get US killed and THEY are not looking out for you.

Answer 10

no we should not let them do that at all