3 ms·
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 wheneve
by 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.