Originally posted by EladarI have often wondered if a newspaper that accepts letters to the editor for publication is a "public accommodation" in this regard and should not reject letters on the basis of the political opinions of the writers. Instead they could accept them on the basis of when received, up to a limit on space, and certain editorial standards such as libel and obscenity and whether the letters are calling for violence. Our local paper also has a limit on word count. What do you think? This would apply to neutral, left leaning, and right-leaning publications.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/the-silencing-paper-will-limit-anti-gay-marriage-op-eds/
You want to voice your opinion on same sex marriage? Only if it is the correct opinion.
It would probably be an infringement on free press.
Originally posted by EladarThat's not shutting down free speech anymore than a church banning swear words from the pulpit is.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/the-silencing-paper-will-limit-anti-gay-marriage-op-eds/
You want to voice your opinion on same sex marriage? Only if it is the correct opinion.
Originally posted by EladarThe newspaper is free to print whatever it wishes. That's what free speech is. They're under no obligation to print the ignorant opinions of fools.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/the-silencing-paper-will-limit-anti-gay-marriage-op-eds/
You want to voice your opinion on same sex marriage? Only if it is the correct opinion.
Originally posted by EladarSo you would like to force newspapers to voice certain opinions?
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/the-silencing-paper-will-limit-anti-gay-marriage-op-eds/
You want to voice your opinion on same sex marriage? Only if it is the correct opinion.
You're not quite clear on the concept of "free speech," are you?
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettAssuming what you say is true, the ones that write anti-gay articles are fools, it's still limiting free speech within the newspaper.
The newspaper is free to print whatever it wishes. That's what free speech is. They're under no obligation to print the ignorant opinions of fools.
Why quantify something before reading it? That is, what if I write something anti-gay that is true? What if they throw it out because they merely don't like it?
For example, let's suppose I do a bit about the science of homosexuality? Let's say I point out that the CDC tells us that gay males in the US account for well over half the AIDS cases in the US even though they only account for about 5% of the population? What if I suggested that if the state really wanted to address STD's and AIDS issues they should then focus on curbing this gay male problem?
What if I then suggested that gay sex was socially mediated? That is, could it be that being gay is learned? I might point out that places like ancient Sparta cultivated a culture steeped in homoerotic tendencies as proof positive that people merely are not just born that way, they actually can adopt such behavior if social pressure sways them that direction. The only other option would be to believe that everyone in ancient Sparta had the gay gene. LOL. Could it be that being gay could be a choice and that the more society embraces it the more people become gay and the more STD's become a problem within the said culture?
Do you think that this newspaper would print such things even though it is the complete truth?
Originally posted by whodeyIt is their prerogative to print it, or not, as they see fit. They are under no obligation to provide you with a platform for the dissemination of your views, and their failure to do so does not in any way compromise your right to free speech. You're perfectly free to start your own newspaper, blog, or online discussion thread, where you can likewise tailor the content as you see fit.
Assuming what you say is true, the ones that write anti-gay articles are fools, it's still limiting free speech within the newspaper.
Why quantify something before reading it? That is, what if I write something anti-gay that is true? What if they throw it out because they merely don't like it?
For example, let's suppose I do a bit about the science of ...[text shortened]...
Do you think that this newspaper would print such things even though it is the complete truth?
Originally posted by rwingettSure, we are free to speak, just like the man who lost his NBA team was free to speak.
It is their prerogative to print it, or not, as they see fit. They are under no obligation to provide you with a platform for the dissemination of your views, and their failure to do so does not in any way compromise your right to free speech. You're perfectly free to start your own newspaper, blog, or online discussion thread, where you can likewise tailor the content as you see fit.
It's a liberal utopia I tell ya!! Just learn to keep your opinions to yourself, if you know what is good for ya.
Originally posted by whodeyThe freedom of speech does not imply that people aren't allowed to think you're an idiot for saying dumb crap.
Sure, we are free to speak, just like the man who lost his NBA team was free to speak.
It's a liberal utopia I tell ya!! Just learn to keep your opinions to yourself, if you know what is good for ya.
Although it's not the same as the idea of "free speech" enshrined in the First Amendment, a newspaper that states it will only print letters that take one side of a ideological issue is surely preventing "free speech" as a technical matter. What is the point of accepting letters from readers for publication if they are to be screened for ideological content?
Originally posted by EladarThe issue is having the money to publish ideas. Even politicians depend upon the press to relay what they want us to know about them.
It seems to me that the paper should voice all opinions when it comes to political issues.
Therefore, the powers that be who own these media outlets hold all the power. The only question is, do they have a political agenda to post certain things or not post them?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat is the purpose of screening letters to silence certain points of view:
Although it's not the same as the idea of "free speech" enshrined in the First Amendment, a newspaper that states it will only print letters that take one side of a ideological issue is surely preventing "free speech" as a technical matter. What is the point of accepting letters from readers for publication if they are to be screened for ideological content?
Try reading whodey's post.