3 ms·
Why journalists have the right to cover the University of Missouri protests
- gozo 11y agoAnother example of someone trying to use the constitution to further their own opinions and thereby undermining the cause they claim to support. In the light of lobby organizations filming students to shame them online and articles like this insinuating legal consequences I very much understand the students distrust of the media.
- tomcam 11y agoYou are correct. The Constitution is there precisely to allow you, and people who disagree with you, your opinions.
- gozo 11y agoConstantly invoking the constitution as an argument, when the heart of the matter is that you disagree, is to cry wolf and undermines its status as an important document. Further it's not a particularly good argument since there are countless opinions on how to interpret "spirit of the constitution" as illustrated by the disagreements over different laws. And since I'm not a US citizen nor in the US, I'm actually not covered by the constitution.
- tomcam 11y agoIt is bizarre and alarming that anyone is questioning the right to free speech on taxpayer-funded land.
- gozo 11y agoIf you believe in free speech I don't see how this would be any more bizarre and alarming doing it on taxpayer-funded land than anywhere else? In fact it would be more appropriate since freedom of speech primarily protect you from government intervention.
- sonthonax 11y agoBecause if it was private land, reporters would not necessarily have the right to be there.
- gozo 11y agoMakes more sense. I though he meant why they were "questioning free speech, while being on taxpayer-funded land", rather than "questioning the right to deliver free speech in a public space".
- rdancer 11y agoThe question is not whether they have that right, it's whether what passes for journalism these days should have that right. The hacks are protected by the First Amendment even when they behave like not very nice people. Which is a lot of the time. Your First Amendment right to free speech is virtually absolute only because the US judiciary believe themselves to be especially bad at discerning harmful and beneficial uses of free speech. If there were a way to curtail bad free speech, without affecting good free speech, why should we not do that? Indeed, most countries' judiciaries have grown a spine, and are not afraid to curtail free speech where it makes sense.