Just wanted to make sure everyone saw this year’s Muzzle Awards in the Phoenix. They give the award to take on efforts to stifle free speech.
And here’s a little more about work by the ACLU of Massachusetts that gets highlighted.
Please share widely!
Let’s not forget that The Phoenix pushed the limits of the 1st Amendment — and, in my opinion, blew the boundaries of decency and good judgment to smithereens — by linking to the decapitation video of Daniel Pearl from their front page in 2002. Sure, they got some publicity, including lots of what were no doubt exciting trips to TV studios — they are a commercial enterprise after all, and they need to keep the circulation numbers up — but since then I’ve read their editorials on behalf of freedom of speech with a jaundiced eye.
I don’t really get what you are saying.
<
p>
I believe – and the Phoenix argues in the explanation you link – that the posting of this video was “free speech” at its ultimate. Nespapers, in particular, should not be forced to remain silent on the views of anyone and this even includes the horrifying and despicable example of further publicizing murder of an innocent. Indeed, free speech purists like me would argue that further discussion of this murder (including publication of a videa and rather than suppression) will eventually help to reduce rather than encourage these types of unforgivable acts.
<
p>
Of course, murdering people is not protected “speech” under the First Amendment in any way, no matter what the “message” of the murderer. Yet, I would defend (and the Constitution would help me defend) the right of a newspaper or anyone to “discuss” the meaning of any murder even if that includes gruesome pictures or video.
<
p>
So, I don’t really see the connection.
<
p>
Are you saying that the Phoenix lost credibility to defend the First Amendment because they decided to publish a video of a murder on their website? Does the recent movie (which reportedly does not show the video itself) on the same topic trouble you as well? Isn’t the Phoenix’s editorial view (strongly pro-First Amendment) entirely consistent with publication of this video?
Let’s not forget that The Phoenix pushed the limits of the 1st Amendment…
<
p>
Um yes
<
p>
…blew the boundaries of decency and good judgment to smithereens — by linking to the decapitation video of Daniel Pearl from their front page in 2002.
<
p>
There is a difference, a difference that seriously should be kept in mind. The 1st amendment supposedly prevents the government from suppressing the press. The 1st amendment does not prevent the customers of the press from withdrawing their custom from the press or its advertisers. A subtle, but very real, distinction.