I understand how money is Speech and How the High Court upheld lying as Free Speech. I'm thinking that TV networks changing live video feed editing the language to meet the needs of a political agenda is a strech of first amendment rights.
2006-10-20 05:21:10 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm really working on the fine line between Propaganda and Free Speech
2006-10-20 05:35:10 · update #1
It is protected, but it should NOT be. It is not speech. That person is not making that statement freely. It's almost the same as me putting a gun to your head and telling you to say you'll pay my mortgage being protected as free speech.
That's too tough of an essay for me. Manipulated speech would be a form of propoganda by defintion, but of course so is a stump speech. As long as your supporting an institution whether its fact or fiction it's propaganda, right?
2006-10-20 05:30:23 · answer #1 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would think so but at the same time these networks are private, thus they are entiteled to their own construction and interpretation of situations. I would not push them to stop, nor would I ban them, with the rights of the first amendment and the fact that they are privately owned, they can execute as they wish.
2006-10-20 05:25:06 · answer #2 · answered by Sleazy P. Martini 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably before most of the readers times, goes back to "Radio Free Europe" we are the recipients inside today.
2006-10-20 05:28:52 · answer #3 · answered by edubya 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean the small % of events that the tv media decides to cover?
2006-10-20 05:23:35 · answer #4 · answered by kool_rock_ski_stickem 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All non-obscene speech is protected...
And that is what "free speech" means, dodo...
2006-10-20 05:23:30 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋