4 ms·

You'd run into quite a bit of trouble with the first amendment and freedom of the press.

by benesch 14y ago

rymith 14y ago
How would you make that case? There are plenty of restrictions on free speech as well as freedom of the press, which is far from absolute, and is most certainly regulated.
- benesch 14y ago
  True, but a restriction on printing the names of criminals and victims would be considered a "content-based restriction," which are subject to strict scrutiny. There is an established legal basis for allowing publication of victim's names: "Thus, it is ordinarily unconstitutional for a state to proscribe a newspaper from publishing the name of a rape victim, lawfully obtained. This is because there ordinarily is no compelling governmental interest in protecting a rape victim’s privacy" (4). IANAL, but permission to print criminal's names (which are obtained legally) follows from similar logic. [0]: Congressional Research Service: Exceptions to the First Amendment: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Key term: "ordinarily."
    - benesch 14y ago
      Right, so "in the majority of rapes." Which extends to the "majority of crimes."
      - rhizome 14y ago
        "Ordinarily" also implies that it's subject to change. There's nothing inherent in the law that prevents the change being discussed, other than the status quo.
vacri 14y ago
Ironically, RSF places the Netherlands in #3 place of the Press Freedom Index, and the US comes in at #47. http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html
- benesch 14y ago
  The US's fall from #20 is largely a result of arrests of reporters attempting to document the Occupy movement. While freedom of the press in the US may be violated pragmatically, you'd have a much harder time challenging it philosophically. That is, police offers arresting individual reporters (especially ones involved in protest) slips by relatively easily, but a federal law placing limits on what information the press can publish would receive strong opposition.
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    So... what? It would be hard for authorities in the US to pass a law restricting speech, so instead they just restrict speech without going through the bother of making a law about it? How is that better?
    - benesch 14y ago
      It's better than restricting speech through law AND enforcement. I'm not supporting the current state of affairs; not at all. Just pointing out that you'd have trouble pushing such a (legal) restriction on the US press.
      - bluedanieru 14y ago
        >It's better than restricting speech through law AND enforcement. Are you sure about that? If a government passes a law restricting speech because it has to, and then enforces it to restrict speech, it isn't clear to me that's worse than a government which doesn't bother with laws in the first place. Either way, you have no freedom of speech, but at least with the former you still have some semblance of rule of law. That's more important than speech, IMO (although of course without both you're already pretty fucked).
arrrg 14y ago
That’s why I prefer putting human dignity in front of freedom of speech (like, e.g. the German constitution does). That way you have to decide between the dignity of those whose names will be published and freedom of speech – and the dignity wins.
Confusion 14y ago
Contrary to what the parent comment asserts, they are not prohibited from printing the full name. It's a gentlemen's agreement between the various media organisations not to do so.
rmc 14y ago
Sounds like a bug in how the first amendment is written and interpreted, you should fix that.
lostlogin 14y ago
It ever ceases to amaze me how stuck America is where it's constitution is concerned. It's hundreds of years old and never imagined times like now. Change it. Those that wrote it would have changed it if it didn't suit them. Do the same.
- benesch 14y ago
  I'll agree that the Constitution is horribly outdated in many situations and that the amendment process is unnecessarily complex. But this is one situation that DID exist in 1787. Surely there were criminals in big(ish) cities, and surely the press was reporting on those criminals. Perhaps social media makes press errors more damaging, but the principle—protecting the privacy of criminals and victims—very much existed back then.

You'd run into quite a bit of trouble with the first amendment and freedom of the press.

by benesch 14y ago

You'd run into quite a bit of trouble with the first amendment and freedom of the press.

How would you make that case? There are plenty of restrictions on free speech as well as freedom of the press, which is far from absolute, and is most certainly regulated.

benesch 14y ago
True, but a restriction on printing the names of criminals and victims would be considered a "content-based restriction," which are subject to strict scrutiny. There is an established legal basis for allowing publication of victim's names: "Thus, it is ordinarily unconstitutional for a state to proscribe a newspaper from publishing the name of a rape victim, lawfully obtained. This is because there ordinarily is no compelling governmental interest in protecting a rape victim’s privacy" (4). IANAL, but permission to print criminal's names (which are obtained legally) follows from similar logic. [0]: Congressional Research Service: Exceptions to the First Amendment: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf
- rhizome 14y ago
  Key term: "ordinarily."
  - benesch 14y ago
    Right, so "in the majority of rapes." Which extends to the "majority of crimes."
    - rhizome 14y ago
      "Ordinarily" also implies that it's subject to change. There's nothing inherent in the law that prevents the change being discussed, other than the status quo.

vacri 14y ago

Ironically, RSF places the Netherlands in #3 place of the Press Freedom Index, and the US comes in at #47. http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

benesch 14y ago
The US's fall from #20 is largely a result of arrests of reporters attempting to document the Occupy movement. While freedom of the press in the US may be violated pragmatically, you'd have a much harder time challenging it philosophically. That is, police offers arresting individual reporters (especially ones involved in protest) slips by relatively easily, but a federal law placing limits on what information the press can publish would receive strong opposition.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  So... what? It would be hard for authorities in the US to pass a law restricting speech, so instead they just restrict speech without going through the bother of making a law about it? How is that better?
  - benesch 14y ago
    It's better than restricting speech through law AND enforcement. I'm not supporting the current state of affairs; not at all. Just pointing out that you'd have trouble pushing such a (legal) restriction on the US press.
    - bluedanieru 14y ago
      >It's better than restricting speech through law AND enforcement. Are you sure about that? If a government passes a law restricting speech because it has to, and then enforces it to restrict speech, it isn't clear to me that's worse than a government which doesn't bother with laws in the first place. Either way, you have no freedom of speech, but at least with the former you still have some semblance of rule of law. That's more important than speech, IMO (although of course without both you're already pretty fucked).

arrrg 14y ago

That’s why I prefer putting human dignity in front of freedom of speech (like, e.g. the German constitution does). That way you have to decide between the dignity of those whose names will be published and freedom of speech – and the dignity wins.

Confusion 14y ago

Contrary to what the parent comment asserts, they are not prohibited from printing the full name. It's a gentlemen's agreement between the various media organisations not to do so.

rmc 14y ago

Sounds like a bug in how the first amendment is written and interpreted, you should fix that.

lostlogin 14y ago

It ever ceases to amaze me how stuck America is where it's constitution is concerned. It's hundreds of years old and never imagined times like now. Change it. Those that wrote it would have changed it if it didn't suit them. Do the same.

benesch 14y ago
I'll agree that the Constitution is horribly outdated in many situations and that the amendment process is unnecessarily complex. But this is one situation that DID exist in 1787. Surely there were criminals in big(ish) cities, and surely the press was reporting on those criminals. Perhaps social media makes press errors more damaging, but the principle—protecting the privacy of criminals and victims—very much existed back then.