4 ms·

I don't see how arguing that how bad yellow journalism was in the past is an argument for continuing it now. Seems a bit like saying 'slavery was bad before, s

by toss1 5y ago

I don't see how arguing that how bad yellow journalism was in the past is an argument for continuing it now. Seems a bit like saying 'slavery was bad before, so discrimination is ok now'. Both are unacceptable in sustainable society. Perhaps a particular case was overturned, but the principle still rings true. Or, are you saying that it should really be OK for people to deliberately make verbal actions that directly result in killing other people?

anjbe 5y ago
The point of bringing up Schenck is that reasonable ideas can be and have been used to justify great wrongs, and thus that we shouldn’t rush into action whenever we see a problem, even if there’s a principle that rings true. “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.” What killed the yellow journalism of the past? Was it added restrictions on speech? Or was it something else that we could consider before taking the drastic step of reducing freedom of speech?
- toss1 5y ago
  >>something else that we could consider before taking the drastic step of reducing freedom of speech? We could consider editorial responsibility - responsibility for what you amplify. The Fairness doctrine did a not bad job while it lasted. Edit: I also notice everyone arguing about Shenk, and no one brings up that some speech is still illegal, e.g., incitement to riot, sedition, and a few others. The point of the example was that nothing is absolute, or should be absolute, even freedom of speech.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > What killed the yellow journalism of the past? Nothing; the golden age of neutral journalism people describe a decline from to today is just when the institutions of yellow journalism all got on the same page and sang in harmony from the same propaganda hymnbook.
mardifoufs 5y ago
It doesn't ring true. It's false, thats it. You are saying that even if you used an overturned century old case to justify censorship, you are still right? Why exactly? You might want it to be true but using it as a foot in the door to justify even more slippery slope restrictions just does not work very well when it's not been relevant for 50 years now. And we lived all that time without the sky falling over, or society collapsing into more intolerance than 100 years ago. So much so that a lot of people still think that it just ought to be illegal. Doesn't that prove that we actually don't have to restrict speech or "intolerance" ? Or do you think that we are worse off in that regard that back when shouting fire in a theater was a reasonable restriction on free speech?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I don't see how arguing that how bad yellow journalism was in the past is an argument for continuing it now. That it is not new in either existing or the extent of it's influence of public perceptions of events outside immediate perception is a very good reason to not view the current situation as an unprecedented crisis posing an imminent existential threat to ordered society that requires slashing political freedom of expression in the hopes that it might curtail yellow journalism without creating something far worse. > Seems a bit like saying 'slavery was bad before, so discrimination is ok now'. No, it's more like saying the current manner of discrimination is manifestly less bad than when we had overt chattel slavery, so countermeasures that would not have been justified to deal with chattel slavery would, a fortiori, not be justified to deal with present discrimination. Except that, of course, the kind of extreme measures that would even arguably not have been justified to address chattel slavery aren't actually on the menu for dealing with modern day discrimination, but tossing aside freedom of speech and the press to empower state censorship as a tool to combat yellow journalism is, for some reason, something people are actively campaigning for.

by toss1 5y ago

anjbe 5y ago

The point of bringing up Schenck is that reasonable ideas can be and have been used to justify great wrongs, and thus that we shouldn’t rush into action whenever we see a problem, even if there’s a principle that rings true. “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.” What killed the yellow journalism of the past? Was it added restrictions on speech? Or was it something else that we could consider before taking the drastic step of reducing freedom of speech?

toss1 5y ago
>>something else that we could consider before taking the drastic step of reducing freedom of speech? We could consider editorial responsibility - responsibility for what you amplify. The Fairness doctrine did a not bad job while it lasted. Edit: I also notice everyone arguing about Shenk, and no one brings up that some speech is still illegal, e.g., incitement to riot, sedition, and a few others. The point of the example was that nothing is absolute, or should be absolute, even freedom of speech.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> What killed the yellow journalism of the past? Nothing; the golden age of neutral journalism people describe a decline from to today is just when the institutions of yellow journalism all got on the same page and sang in harmony from the same propaganda hymnbook.

mardifoufs 5y ago

It doesn't ring true. It's false, thats it. You are saying that even if you used an overturned century old case to justify censorship, you are still right? Why exactly? You might want it to be true but using it as a foot in the door to justify even more slippery slope restrictions just does not work very well when it's not been relevant for 50 years now. And we lived all that time without the sky falling over, or society collapsing into more intolerance than 100 years ago. So much so that a lot of people still think that it just ought to be illegal. Doesn't that prove that we actually don't have to restrict speech or "intolerance" ? Or do you think that we are worse off in that regard that back when shouting fire in a theater was a reasonable restriction on free speech?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I don't see how arguing that how bad yellow journalism was in the past is an argument for continuing it now. That it is not new in either existing or the extent of it's influence of public perceptions of events outside immediate perception is a very good reason to not view the current situation as an unprecedented crisis posing an imminent existential threat to ordered society that requires slashing political freedom of expression in the hopes that it might curtail yellow journalism without creating something far worse. > Seems a bit like saying 'slavery was bad before, so discrimination is ok now'. No, it's more like saying the current manner of discrimination is manifestly less bad than when we had overt chattel slavery, so countermeasures that would not have been justified to deal with chattel slavery would, a fortiori, not be justified to deal with present discrimination. Except that, of course, the kind of extreme measures that would even arguably not have been justified to address chattel slavery aren't actually on the menu for dealing with modern day discrimination, but tossing aside freedom of speech and the press to empower state censorship as a tool to combat yellow journalism is, for some reason, something people are actively campaigning for.