NYT Advocates Freedom of Speech Restrictions

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
Post Reply
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

NYT Advocates Freedom of Speech Restrictions

Post by ken_sylvania »

A recent opinion piece in the New York Times advocates government censorship of news outlets.
Mark Galeotti, Op-Ed contributor at New York Times wrote:"For example, punitive measures like sanctions can be a very powerful weapon against the opportunist kleptocrats on whom Mr. Putin relies for support. Media owners whose networks spread disinformation, members of Parliament who cultivate extremists, and oligarchs who allow themselves to be used as Kremlin front men should all be fair game. Treating them like members of an organized crime syndicate would allow Washington to freeze not only their assets, but also those of their families, and bar them from entry." Emphasis mine.
Interesting, considering that just a few short weeks ago their worry about Mr. Trump's administration censoring newspapers was giving them conniptions. Apparently sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander after all.
1 x
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: NYT Advocates Freedom of Speech Restrictions

Post by Dan Z »

ken_sylvania wrote:A recent opinion piece in the New York Times advocates government censorship of news outlets.
Mark Galeotti, Op-Ed contributor at New York Times wrote:"For example, punitive measures like sanctions can be a very powerful weapon against the opportunist kleptocrats on whom Mr. Putin relies for support. Media owners whose networks spread disinformation, members of Parliament who cultivate extremists, and oligarchs who allow themselves to be used as Kremlin front men should all be fair game. Treating them like members of an organized crime syndicate would allow Washington to freeze not only their assets, but also those of their families, and bar them from entry." Emphasis mine.
Interesting, considering that just a few short weeks ago their worry about Mr. Trump's administration censoring newspapers was giving them conniptions. Apparently sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander after all.

Good point...irony indeed...although apparently Mr. Galeotti is an Op-Ed columnist, sharing his own perspective, and thus it doesn't seem that he is speaking officially for the NY Times editorial board.

In fact, the paper is granting him freedom of speech in publishing his Op-Ed calling for the limiting of free speech - double irony I suppose. :)
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: NYT Advocates Freedom of Speech Restrictions

Post by Bootstrap »

I was surprised by this. Then I read it again, and was surprised by the word Parliament in the quote - the United States does not have a Parliament, so what is the quote about?

So I went and looked at the article. In context, the quote is about people in Russia working together with the Kremlin to spread disinformation. It suggests that they are working closely together to do this. So this doesn't seem to be about limiting press freedom in the United States.

I don't thin it's a good idea to go after foreign media working for their governments, but I also suspect this isn't what the First Amendment is really about.
But the United States also needs to declare in advance, and with evident resolve, the kinds of actions it would take in response to certain political attacks. Russia has been taking advantage of the weaknesses and freedoms of the West, so the West should similarly strike back against Russia’s vulnerabilities.

For example, punitive measures like sanctions can be a very powerful weapon against the opportunist kleptocrats on whom Mr. Putin relies for support. Media owners whose networks spread disinformation, members of Parliament who cultivate extremists, and oligarchs who allow themselves to be used as Kremlin front men should all be fair game. Treating them like members of an organized crime syndicate would allow Washington to freeze not only their assets, but also those of their families, and bar them from entry.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: NYT Advocates Freedom of Speech Restrictions

Post by ken_sylvania »

Bootstrap wrote:I was surprised by this. Then I read it again, and was surprised by the word Parliament in the quote - the United States does not have a Parliament, so what is the quote about?

So I went and looked at the article. In context, the quote is about people in Russia working together with the Kremlin to spread disinformation. It suggests that they are working closely together to do this. So this doesn't seem to be about limiting press freedom in the United States.

I don't think it's a good idea to go after foreign media working for their governments, but I also suspect this isn't what the First Amendment is really about.
But the United States also needs to declare in advance, and with evident resolve, the kinds of actions it would take in response to certain political attacks. Russia has been taking advantage of the weaknesses and freedoms of the West, so the West should similarly strike back against Russia’s vulnerabilities.

For example, punitive measures like sanctions can be a very powerful weapon against the opportunist kleptocrats on whom Mr. Putin relies for support. Media owners whose networks spread disinformation, members of Parliament who cultivate extremists, and oligarchs who allow themselves to be used as Kremlin front men should all be fair game. Treating them like members of an organized crime syndicate would allow Washington to freeze not only their assets, but also those of their families, and bar them from entry.
Yes, the focus here is on Russia. I believe you're correct that for the US to censor Russian media would not constitute a violation of the 1st Amendment, but it would certainly be in contradiction of the USA's claimed commitment to free speech around the world (not that the US government is in any way committed to freedom of speech that it doesn't agree with).
1 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: NYT Advocates Freedom of Speech Restrictions

Post by Bootstrap »

ken_sylvania wrote:Yes, the focus here is on Russia. I believe you're correct that for the US to censor Russian media would not constitute a violation of the 1st Amendment, but it would certainly be in contradiction of the USA's claimed commitment to free speech around the world (not that the US government is in any way committed to freedom of speech that it doesn't agree with).
Even if it were published in the United States, libel laws apply. And a lot of this fake news is textbook libel. For instance, what do you think of the fake news that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor? That prompted a North Carolina man to arm himself and attempt to free the victims, firing shots. The story is totally fake, and was invented for a malicious purpose.

People believe this stuff. A father is in jail right now because he thought it was true and wanted to play hero. These kinds of ugly, intentional lies have consequences, leading to a lot of ignorant hostility that divides us and makes it hard to even talk to each other. In some circles, believing every false and ugly rumor about your political enemy is almost a test of loyalty.

Don't you think that fake news story meets the following criteria?
Libel:
  • Exposes a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, contempt or ridicule.
  • Injures a person’s reputation or causes the person to be shunned or avoided.
  • Injures the person in his or her occupation.

Examples might include accusing someone of having committed a heinous crime, or of having a disease that might cause them to be shunned.

Two other important points:

Libel is by definition false. Anything that is provably true cannot be libelous.

“Published” in this context simply means that the libelous statement is communicated to someone other than the person being libeled. That can mean anything from an article that's photocopied and distributed to just a few people to a story that appears in a newspaper with millions of subscribers.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: NYT Advocates Freedom of Speech Restrictions

Post by ken_sylvania »

I've not researched the source of that particular conspiracy, but from what I've heard and read it certainly sounds like it was published with a reckless or malicious disregard for truth.
The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that statements of opinion rather than fact are not necessarily libelous, and that statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously false can't be considered libel. The Hillary/Podesta pizza parlor conspiracy certainly falls in the latter category for me, but obviously not for plenty of other folks out there.
I suspect that it could be difficult to obtain a libel conviction for much of the fake news that's being passed around due to it being presented as question rather than fact, albeit as question with only one "reasonable" answer given the "facts" presented in the article.
1 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: NYT Advocates Freedom of Speech Restrictions

Post by Bootstrap »

ken_sylvania wrote:The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that statements of opinion rather than fact are not necessarily libelous, and that statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously false can't be considered libel. The Hillary/Podesta pizza parlor conspiracy certainly falls in the latter category for me, but obviously not for plenty of other folks out there.
I've been rather astonished by what people are willing to believe. Even smart, good people. Political loyalties can make us stupid. That's one reason I think Kingdom Christians need to avoid that kind of loyalty to any political party, figure, or movement.
ken_sylvania wrote:I suspect that it could be difficult to obtain a libel conviction for much of the fake news that's being passed around due to it being presented as question rather than fact, albeit as question with only one "reasonable" answer given the "facts" presented in the article.
Possibly. And that ought to be a red flag for us when we read. Then again, some of this fake news was not distributed as a question, but as a blunt statement of fact.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply