Do we need a mandatory 7 day waiting period on news stories?

ebrown_p wrote:

You can't have a Free Press that is subject to the will of, or defers to the needs of the government and the military.

That is a basic contradiction in terms.

Echo Fedral.

You are exagerating the scope of my position. I am suggesting a very narrow set of circumstances where the Press must either censure themselves or be censured when National Security or Troops could be put at risk.

How could any reasonable person be against that position. I await your response.

0 Replies

Specious argument, Fedral--read The Rommel Papers, edited by Frau Rommel and B. H. Liddel-Hart sometime. Rommel looked at the bombing pattern from Eisenhower's "Transportation Plan" and predicted, months in advance, that the landings would take place at Normandy. OKW, OKH and Hitler were not prepared to lend the notion any credence, because they wished to believe that the landings would take place in the Pas de Calais, where they were best prepared to meet the invaders. That notion was so pervasive, that OKH and Hitler continued to operate on the assumption that the Normandy landings were a feint, and that the "real" landings would come in the Pas de Calais, and continued to believe that for months after the Normandy invasion.

The Allied air forces flew 14,827 sorties over the invasion area on June 6, 1944. A contention that the Germans could have done anything more to defend that coastline, even with advanced warning, is absurd.

0 Replies

OK Setana, I'll play your game of evading my answer.

How about if the Press had gotten the time and date and course that Bomber Command was going to fly on it's attack on Plotsei oil fields or Berlin or any other targets they took great pains to fly indirect courses to to avoid forwarning the Germans?

What if the Press had found out the date and time of the Inchon Invasion (Which came as a complete suprise to the North Koreans) would they have had an obligation to report THAT?

How about the great flanking maneuver made by General Swartzkoff in the first Gulf War. While seeming to threaten an amphibious attack against Kuwait, he shifted massive forces west and made a huge flanking attack. Did the press have an obligation to report that ...

You will probably next post at how ANYONE could have figured those things out if they had paid attention, but they didn't and you are still ignoring the question as to whether the Press has an obligation to report such things ...

I breathlessly await your next evasion.

0 Replies

Fedral,

Here is a direct answer.

The Free Press has the right not the "obligation" to report on any information it gathers (with a possible very few extreme hypothetical examples you may be able to construct.)

Freedom of Speech and The Freedom of the Press are the most sacred tenets of American Democracy. I would put these fundamental freedoms above any other consideration.

Your specific examples all center around specific military strategic plans. I agree with you that the military has a legitimate need for the press to not make these plans separate. Fine, we agree.

However, this does not require, nor does this justify any compromise on the independence of the press. The military can and does keep these plans secret... from the press and from the public.

The independence of the press, as understood by our founders and expressed in our Constitution is of such importance-- that you simply don't mess with it.

The Government and the military have the ability and the responsibility to meet their own secrecy needs. If the press becomes responsible for these needs, their independence is compromised.

Independence means that the press and the government each work in their own interests. Sometimes these interests conflict, but neither entity should be deferred from its basic mission.

If you make the press subservient to the needs of government or the military... you destroy the entire idea of Freedom of the Press.

0 Replies

Censoring events is not the same as censoring the press.

0 Replies

Yes, this country accepted such restrictions on what the Press was permitted to write during the Civil War, World War One, World War Two and Korea.

I agree that a free and unfettered Press is important to the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

I also posit that the Second Amendment is JUST as important to the freedoms we enjoy and we seem to accept numerous restrictions on that particular Right.

The Right to Free Speech doesn't allow me to scream 'SHARK' at the beach. If I did that,I would be held responsible for any injuries resulting from that panic that it caused.

Let me put it another way... and one that may seem more plausible.

The Los Angeles Police Department gets an uncorroborated tip that there is a meth lab in a West Side residence and they are also selling guns out of the house.

They go to some of their other informants looking for confirmation. One of their informants just says ... I know they aren't selling guns there so that part of your information is incorrect, but I can't confirm or deny the existence of a meth lab.

On such unconfirmed information, LAPD SWAT loads up and crashes the door. They crash down the door on a Hispanic Bible study group and slam the participants to the ground, roughing them up in the process...

Due to the cultural insensitivity of the LAPD, a riot starts in Los Angeles and in the course of the riots, 17 citizens of LA are killed ...

When the press does some background and they found out on exactly what flimsy evidence the raid was conducted, who exactly do you think that the Press is going to crucify in their pages?

Do you think that they are going to blame the informants? Are they going to blame the rioters? Nope, they will blame the LAPD for beginning this whole thing on such flimsy evidence wither confirmation...

I'm just asking the Press to be held to as high a standard as they seem to expect in others.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Censoring events is not the same as censoring the press.

Huh??? Please do explain what you mean.

What would you forbid the events to talk about?

0 Replies

Quote:

I also posit that the Second Amendment is JUST as important to the freedoms we enjoy and we seem to accept numerous restrictions on that particular Right.

This is a tangent, and perhaps it warrants another thread, but this statement interests me. Can you back it up?

The Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press have been used on countless occasions that have without doubt been instrumental to securing or preserving freedom.

- No one can deny the effect of the press on ending Senator McCarthy's attack on Freedom and sensibility... "Have you no shame!" was a televised moment that changed America.

- The Civil Rights movement was an exercise on free speech that was opposed by many. This was an importnat movement long before Dr. King. "Strange Fruit", sympathetic newspapers were all accused of upsetting the peace. But they ultimately changed our nation.

- The Pentagon papers, when published changed our nation. You can argue about whether this was a good thing or bad thing, but the power of the effect of a free press is undeniable.

- The Watergate Scandal would have stayed underground forever without a free press.

- Woman's sufferage (the gay marriage of its day) was gained with an exersize in free speech.

- The End of Slavery. The end of the KKK. The end of organized Anti-Semitism... the list goes on.

All of these were caused by exposure brought about by the freedom of the press.

The Freedom of the Press has had a dramatic effect on our nation.

Now what about the Right to Bear Arms

I can think of a few times when Americans defended their freedom with the right to bear arms.

- John Brown's slave rebellion (unsuccessful I might add).

- The Southern Confederate side of the Civil War. (also regettably unsuccessfuly)

- The Black Panthers and Weathermen of the 60's.

- The Waco and Ruby Ridge groups. (also tragically unsuccessful).

I don't think there is any factual argument to be made that the second Amendment has played has anywhere near the same role as the first in our history, or our freedoms.

Of course, they are both part of the Constitution, but the pen is mightier than the sword.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Censoring events is not the same as censoring the press.

Huh??? Please do explain what you mean.

What would you forbid the events to talk about?

I don't know exactly what McG was meaning here, but my view is the following ...

If I am a reporter and I end up at the scene of a heinous murder, I may report that the victim was killed, I may even write that the victim was killed in a ritualistic or gruesome fashion. But Maybe I censor myself from writing that the victim was raped and her internal organs were laid about her in a star pattern and her foot was cut off and stuffed down her throat out of decency and respect to her family and the public at large...

You can report, you don't need to report everything. The public doesn't need to know every fart and bowel movement of its leaders. It doesn't need to know every time the Pope scratches his butt. Thats not news, it's voyeurism.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

I also posit that the Second Amendment is JUST as important to the freedoms we enjoy and we seem to accept numerous restrictions on that particular Right.

This is a tangent, and perhaps it warrants another thread, but this statement interests me. Can you back it up?

The Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press have been used on countless occasions that have without doubt been instrumental to securing or preserving freedom.

- No one can deny the effect of the press on ending Senator McCarthy's attack on Freedom and sensibility... "Have you no shame!" was a televised moment that changed America.

And yet, many years later, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the KGB records, we found out just HOW pervasive the infiltration of our government with Soviet spies was. Seems old Joe was pretty much on the money"

ebrown_p wrote:

- The Civil Rights movement was an exercise on free speech that was opposed by many. This was an importnat movement long before Dr. King. "Strange Fruit", sympathetic newspapers were all accused of upsetting the peace. But they ultimately changed our nation.

- The Pentagon papers, when published changed our nation. You can argue about whether this was a good thing or bad thing, but the power of the effect of a free press is undeniable.

- The Watergate Scandal would have stayed underground forever without a free press.

- Woman's sufferage (the gay marriage of its day) was gained with an exersize in free speech.

- The End of Slavery. The end of the KKK. The end of organized Anti-Semitism... the list goes on.

All of these were caused by exposure brought about by the freedom of the press.

The Freedom of the Press has had a dramatic effect on our nation.

You seem to think I am denying the virtue of a Free Press, but I am not. I am as proud of our First Amendment as I am of our Second. In just my opinion, the judge that allowed the Press to publish CLASSIFIED military documents all in the name of free speech was judicial activism at its most vile. Whats next, publishing our missile launce codes in the name of the publics "right to know"? . But thats another topic entirely.

ebrown_p wrote:

Now what about the Right to Bear Arms

I can think of a few times when Americans defended their freedom with the right to bear arms.

- John Brown's slave rebellion (unsuccessful I might add).

- The Southern Confederate side of the Civil War. (also regettably unsuccessfuly)

- The Black Panthers and Weathermen of the 60's.

- The Waco and Ruby Ridge groups. (also tragically unsuccessful).

I don't think there is any factual argument to be made that the second Amendment has played has anywhere near the same role as the first in our history, or our freedoms.

I think the fact that our Nation still stands and never fell victim to the spectre of Fascism or Communism and the fact that we haven't been invaded since the War of 1812. The very presence of weapons in great numbers has been a deterrent in and of itself. Not to count the thousands of innocent people who have defended themselves with their firearms that our Second Amendment guarantees ... I am sure all those people would contend that their Second Amendment Rights were as important as their First.

ebrown_p wrote:

Of course, they are both part of the Constitution, but the pen is mightier than the sword.

I just wish that more people would remember that they were BOTH Rights that were guaranteed to us by the Founding Fathers

0 Replies

Quote:

I think the fact that our Nation still stands and never fell victim to the spectre of Fascism or Communism and the fact that we haven't been invaded since the War of 1812. The very presence of weapons in great numbers has been a deterrent in and of itself. Not to count the thousands of innocent people who have defended themselves with their firearms that our Second Amendment guarantees ... I am sure all those people would contend that their Second Amendment Rights were as important as their First.

Is that the best you can do? You really think that hunters and NRA members were a deterrent to the nuclear Soviet Union. That's very nice. I expected a real example. (I always thought the Commies were stimied by the third Amendment.)

The second Amendment is a guarantee of the freedom of citizens against their government.

Can you give one successful example where American citizens defended their freedom using the second Amendment. It is a fair challenge. Can you give even one example since the American Revolution?

The KKK used the right to bear arms to take away the rights of American citizens. Martin Luther King defeated them without using the right to bear arms. Dr King won.

I don't think you have a logical case here.

0 Replies

The examples which you provide are, in many cases, poor ones. In the example of Ploesti, the air forces which attacked that city followed one of two flight paths, neither of which hinged upon evasion, both of which were necessitated by the altitude to which the aircraft assigned were able to fly with their assigned bomb loads and still to be able to return should the survive the bombing run. In the case of Berlin, bombers were operating at the extreme limit of their range, and no significant evasion would be possible if it were expected that the bomber crews were to return to their air bases. I would recommend to you the American Civil War as a far more fertile ground in which to find blatant examples of the press retailing military plans and resources.

Of course i recognize that your feeble examples are not the point. But more than that, they are not to the point in the example which is really sticking in your craw. I will ask you if, for example, those who played video of the Rodney King beating, from which subsequently, it might be argue, the riots in Los Angeles arose--if those who aired the video are as reprehensible as Newsweek magazine is being claimed to be? The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. resulted in days of rioting in major cities across the country--do you contend that the government ougth to have had the power to suppress that news? Do you believe that it could have been possible to have done so? It has been rather cogently observed elsewhere in these fora that the now notorious reports of the abuse in Iraq of Iraqis detained in almost all cases without due process did not lead to widespread rioting in the Muslim world. Are you so pathetically dedicated to the support of the current set of bimbos running the executive branch that you are willing to see the press muzzled by a select few decision makers who would have the power based solely upon their speculations? If someone makes a public statement, to which you object, and it results in an assault on your part, the nature and content of that message will not be a credible defense for your actions. A simple contention that the Newsweek report was the cause of the rioting is oversimplistic in the extreme. Apart from an issue of whether or not the report could be considered provocative, your position fails to recognize that rioting occurred, not because something was reported, but because of what the something reported was. The simplest way to assure that rioting over the treatment of "detainees" (oh blessed euphemism) does not occur, is to assure nothing but the highest standard of the treatment of the detainees in question. Were we not in the grip of a rogue regime in Washington which considers that it is answerable to no higher authority or principle, such problems would not arise.

There is a reeking stench of disgusting hypocricy in the moral indignation of those who condemn the press for reporting the at least questionable, and very possibly the criminal, activities of those who are the partisan darlings of the people condemning the press. If this administration adhered to a high standard of humanitarian treatment of detainees, who have never been given due process of law, results such as this would not occur.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

I think the fact that our Nation still stands and never fell victim to the spectre of Fascism or Communism and the fact that we haven't been invaded since the War of 1812. The very presence of weapons in great numbers has been a deterrent in and of itself. Not to count the thousands of innocent people who have defended themselves with their firearms that our Second Amendment guarantees ... I am sure all those people would contend that their Second Amendment Rights were as important as their First.

Is that the best you can do? You really think that hunters and NRA members were a deterrent to the nuclear Soviet Union. That's very nice. I expected a real example. (I always thought the Commies were stimied by the third Amendment.)

The second Amendment is a guarantee of the freedom of citizens against their government.

Can you give one successful example where American citizens defended their freedom using the second Amendment. It is a fair challenge. Can you give even one example since the American Revolution?

The KKK used the right to bear arms to take away the rights of American citizens. Martin Luther King defeated them without using the right to bear arms. Dr King won.

I don't think you have a logical case here.

I believe that among our inalienable Rights are the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Here are a list of people who saved their LIVES and were free to continue their pursuit of happiness through expression of their Second Amendment Rights:
HERE

Or perhaps a quote by one of our enemies from the past:
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

Or perhaps you think the deterent effect of the numerous ICBM's we had, had NOTHING to do with the fact that the Soviet Union didn't attack us.

Trying to prove the effect of a deterent force is difficult. If I tell you that:
"If you set foot on my property, I will shoot you with my gun"

If you fail to ever set foot on my property, even though I never fired my weapon at you, wasn't it a deterent?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The examples which you provide are, in many cases, poor ones... ...humanitarian treatment of detainees, who have never been given due process of law, results such as this would not occur.

Any yet again you avoid the question of whether the press had a requrement to report the information in my above examples. You just try to distract the point by pointing out other events that bear no indication on those points.

But for me to actually answer YOUR points...

Rodney King ... we had video ... the proof was there for anyone to see that the force was excessive, so of COURSE it should have been published.

The assasination of Doctor King was witnessed by hundreds, if not thousands so of course it was newsworthy.

As to your other, this has nothing to do with the current Administration. This is about running an UNCONFIRMED (What part of that won't you get through your head) report that could have caused harm.

To simplify it.

Rodney King: House on fire... you yell fire. You are correct.

Doctor King: Shark in the water... you yell shark. You are a hero.

The 'Newsweek incident': No fire... you yell FIRE. People are hurt, you are a criminal.

0 Replies

The fact we had numerous ICBM's is irrelevent to a discussion on the second amendment. I am pretty sure that not one single individual citizen ever had an ICBM.

You have a point that the right to bear arms is related to the right to self-defense. However, many of us live just fine without exercising this right. I am not saying that we should take away this right.

I am just pointing out that even if you consider the thousands of people who have defended lives or property with privately owned guns... and even if you ignore the hundreds of people who faced armed lynch mobs, and the thousands who have shot wives or children...

The Freedom of Speech brought about vast social changes, prevented government abuses and protected and secured freedom for millions.

Comparing the two is ridiculous.

0 Replies

It is not yet established whether or not the Newsweek article was correct or incorrect. It is becoming increasingly evident that many former detainees across the glove have reported, over the course of the last two years, the desecration of the Quran as a policy pointedly directed at the sensibilities of Muslims.

The Newsweek Incident: A spreading fire, right wingers join hands and try to stand so as to prevent anyone from seeing the fire . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It is not yet established whether or not the Newsweek article was correct or incorrect. It is becoming increasingly evident that many former detainees across the glove have reported, over the course of the last two years, the desecration of the Quran as a policy pointedly directed at the sensibilities of Muslims.

The Newsweek Incident: A spreading fire, right wingers join hands and try to stand so as to prevent anyone from seeing the fire . . .

Any yet again Setana, you have hit the evade button and refused to answer the question of whether in the cases I outlined, the Press would have been obligated to report the event if the information had crossed their desks?

Lets just take ONE and see if you can stop from anwering...

If, during the Korean Conflict, a reporter had been made aware of the Inchon landings before they had happened. Would he have been obligated to write the story, even though such a thing would have either caused the aborting of the landing or have resulted in the deaths of thousands of soldiers?

What is the obligation of the free and unfettered Press in this case ?

Do you post the story regardless of the cost to the men who have to make the landings?

Please don't come back with: "There would have been nothing the North Koreans could have done to stop MacArthur, etc." because even MacArthur was unsure that he could have succeded in the face of significant opposition.

So what is your answer?

0 Replies

You've already had your answer from EBrown--the press is never obligated to report anything, but always retain the right to report anything. In time of war, the government has limited power to interfer with the press for reasons of national security. Any contention that the abuse of detainees should be held confidential for reasons of national security is equivalent to saying the government has an absolute right to protection from self-incrimination regarding their criminal activities.

Your attempt to liken the Newsweek piece, which is very much to the point in this thread, to military security, is little more than partisan inspired, hysterical rhetoric.

Come up with an apples to apples comparison, and i might be inclined to take you seriously. Until such time, every mention on your part of military operations just confirms my conviction that you are raising the debate to the level of hysteria, because you become hysterical whenever someone targets this adminstration for the criticism it so richly deserves.

0 Replies

Perhaps we could get some organization or another get together and have a "desecrate the Koran" party. They could use loads of pig manure, fire, menstruating women, pig blood and perhaps a little human pee. They could get press coverage for sure.

All this fuss over a book is a little too much. I am surprised to see the godless liberals taking up the cause of defending the Koran with such vigor, yet can not understand how Christians feel about the bible and what it represents.

Books are just paper and ink. It's the message inside that matters and no one can desecrate the message to a true follower of a book.

0 Replies

I am not surprised to see that the right continues to consider this simply an issue regarding a book, rather than one of the systematic, intentional degredation of people who have never been given due process of law to determine whether or not they are terrorists, or affiliated with terrorist organizations.

0 Replies

Do we need a mandatory 7 day waiting period on news stories?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know