Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Mar '10 13:46
    Should the public have a statutory right of reply to inaccuracy in the press?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    17 Mar '10 14:36
    Originally posted by FMF
    Should the public have a statutory right of reply to inaccuracy in the press?
    Can you be a bit more specific?

    By "public" do you mean "government"?

    By "right of reply," do you mean that the government should have the right to respond to inaccuracies and require the press to carry its response?

    The premise sounds interesting, but I need a little clarification on the specifics to consider the idea.
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Mar '10 15:12
    Originally posted by sh76
    By "public" do you mean "government"?
    No. Private citizens who don't own newspapers and who don't have the communication machine that governments have.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    17 Mar '10 15:13
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. Private citizens who don't own newspapers and who don't have the communication machine that governments have.
    So, how would they get the message of their reply out?
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Mar '10 15:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    So, how would they get the message of their reply out?
    What do you propose?

    I was thinking in terms of a statutory right of reply, something reasonable and feasible, in the very bit of the press that was responsible for the alleged inaccuracy.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    17 Mar '10 15:28
    Originally posted by FMF
    What do you propose?

    I was thinking in terms of a statutory right of reply, something reasonable and feasible, in the very bit of the press that was responsible for the alleged inaccuracy.
    I'm just not envisioning the logistics that would allow this sort of right to operate on a practical level.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Mar '10 15:54
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm just not envisioning the logistics that would allow this sort of right to operate on a practical level.
    Practically aside, for now, philosophically wouldn't some kind of 'right of reply that can be heard' be necessary to make "freedom of speech" work properly?
  8. 17 Mar '10 16:41
    Originally posted by FMF
    What do you propose?

    I was thinking in terms of a statutory right of reply, something reasonable and feasible, in the very bit of the press that was responsible for the alleged inaccuracy.
    Define your statutory right?
    I called the editor of the local paper here, and tried to clear up an issue they had written about my former company. He asked if he could quote me, and told him go for it. never saw another thing in the paper.
    By saying statutory, do you mean this editor should be required to print my words,, or what?
  9. 17 Mar '10 18:47
    Originally posted by FMF
    Practically aside, for now, philosophically wouldn't some kind of 'right of reply that can be heard' be necessary to make "freedom of speech" work properly?
    ever heard of the "comments section"? they have it on many newspaper websites, and even news websites.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Mar '10 00:38
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    ever heard of the "comments section"? they have it on many newspaper websites, and even news websites.
    Yes. That could perhaps be one mechanism for a reply that exercises freedom of speech - but for it to be a 'statutory right of reply' the newspaper would not be able to censor it or delete it or marginalize it by making it too difficult to see, right?
  11. 18 Mar '10 17:27
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yes. That could perhaps be one mechanism for a reply that exercises freedom of speech - but for it to be a 'statutory right of reply' the newspaper would not be able to censor it or delete it or marginalize it by making it too difficult to see, right?
    But you need censorship, otherwise you'd have vandalism, and nobody wants that.
    "Marginalize it by making it too difficult to see"? Do you have any examples of this?
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Mar '10 17:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    But you need censorship, otherwise you'd have vandalism...
    Oh so you advocate censorship of the press then?

    My OP is about people having the right to rebut the "vandalism" of the press.
  13. 18 Mar '10 17:37
    Originally posted by FMF
    Oh so you advocate censorship of the press then?

    My OP is about people having the right to rebut the "vandalism" of the press.
    Oh so you advocate censorship of the press then?

    I just think that hateful comments (e.g racially offensive) and trolls should be censored in order to preserve the integrity of the comments section. Surely that can't be too bad.

    My OP is about people having the right to rebut the "vandalism" of the press.

    I thought your OP was about people "having the statutory right to reply to inaccuracy in the press".
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Mar '10 17:40
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    I thought your OP was about people "having the statutory right to reply to inaccuracy in the press".
    Yes. It was. Well done. You're doing really well here.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Mar '10 17:41
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    But you need censorship, otherwise you'd have vandalism, and nobody wants that.
    So you advocate censorship of the press then?