Journalistic Integrity (Wednesday, January 25 - 6th period)

[imanaturalblond.livejournal.com]

"Good afternoon, children. Mr. Barbossa - I heard the announcement yesterday. It's only libel if it's in print, dearie. You might want to ask the principal about slander, though I still rather think you'd have a case if we worked at it."


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," Rita recited. "That's from your country's constitution. The bit we're going to look at is the 'or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press' part.

"This amendment was written because at this country's inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms. Without this, American media would be in a spot of trouble. Protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change."

Rita smiled.

"So, does that mean we can say what we'd like, in this country? It rather seems to say as much. But that's not the case, is it?" She surveyed the class. "These rights guaranteed by the First Amendment - when are the times in which this right to free press is challenged? Can any of you think of instances?"

Comments

Re: Discussion - First Amendment Rights?

[krycek-rat.livejournal.com]

"As Barbossa pointed out, when at war the government uses that as a fairly heavy-handed excuse - anything that might demoralize the people or send them into a panic, loss of national security, things like that," Krycek said. "There are times when it can be well-used, but equally as often it's improperly done in order to keep themselves looking clean."