Subject:
|
Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 22:32:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1222 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Duane Hess wrote:
> > > * 46% said the press in America has "too much freedom to do what it
> > > wants." By contrast, only 36% think there is "too much government
> > > censorship."
> > >
> > > * 71% think it is somewhat or very important for the government "to
> > > hold the media in check."
>
> Yuck. The only checks on the media should be free market and property
> rights.
I think I am defining that line of mine a little better. If there is
questionable material on TV (which I feel there is), I don't watch it. If
there are other people who feel as I do, ratings will drop. With dropping
ratings, advertisers will pull their support because their target audience
is shrinking. That in turn makes the show unprofitable for the network. I
know for a fact that the networks will yank an unprofitable show. Makes sense.
>
> > I think that the government *does* need to step in in cases of public
> > interest and libel. Otherwise, if you don't like what you are reading - stop
> > reading. On the other hand, those are both restrictions, so obviously I feel
> > that governmental interference is necessary at some point. What that point
> > is and where the line is drawn, I can't answer at the moment.
The "public interest" phrase gets scarier the more I think about it (even
though I was the one who wrote it). Who is to say what is in the public's
best interest? The government? I hope not. I want to be the one in charge of
what information is available to me and my family.
> Protection against libel is a property right.
>
> > The situation that comes to mind though, is the Dale Earnhardt autopsy
> > photos. Are they suitable for the general public? No. Are they suitable for
> > a third party investigation into the cause of the crash? Yes. I'm glad that
> > they have been sealed from public view out of respect for the family. Yes,
> > it violates the first amendment, but I feel it's justified to keep them out
> > of the general public's eye. I am curious to see what a third party examiner
> > has to say about the evidence present in the photos though...
>
> Things like autopsy photos should be adequately protected by property
> rights. The family most certainly has property rights to the condition
> of a deceased family member (said property rights being assigned by
> default in the absence of a will or other documented express wish of the
> deceased). Now if the cause of death is suspicious, the police may force
> the family to make the autopsy photos available for investigation (or
> even force the autopsy to be done in the first place).
Thanks, Frank. That actually helps clarify my view on the subject.
>
> I suspect this survey is somewhat skewed to produce alarming results (of
> course it could also be skewed by those in favor of suppressing free
> speech).
-Duane
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
