tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post115514105647015672..comments2024-02-16T09:00:32.845-06:00Comments on FromDC2Iowa: What is "the press"?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1155575164214856722006-08-14T12:06:00.000-05:002006-08-14T12:06:00.000-05:00John: Why do I have the sense you know more about...John: Why do I have the sense you know more about firecrackers in hog barns than you are revealing? Are you seeking from me a legal defense to such an errant youth? Perhaps your best protection is the Statute of Limitations.<BR/><BR/>There is usually some overlap between "speech" (in the constitutional sense) and "action." Consider a picket line, or a "protest march/parade." A dance, with no "speech" in the conventional sense may still be "speech" in the constitutionally protected sense. <BR/><BR/>(And there are, of course, forms of action (containing "speech") and even almost pure "speech" as to which the Court may very well find some overriding value that warrants "abridging the freedom of speech" in that limited context.)<BR/><BR/>Whether action or speech, I'm sure the hogs got your message.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467682953748756539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1155488133383382062006-08-13T11:55:00.000-05:002006-08-13T11:55:00.000-05:00Ok if hog calling is a form of communication (do t...Ok if hog calling is a form of communication (do the folks in communication studies know this?) what about tossing a firecraker into a hog barn? If that is a form of communication what is the message?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1155418024391567782006-08-12T16:27:00.000-05:002006-08-12T16:27:00.000-05:00RexusNexus: Note, in connection with your last que...RexusNexus: Note, in connection with your last question, that the Supreme Court has ruled that with the right of First Amendment free speech goes the right to censor everyone else. That is, the owner of a quasi-monopoly newspaper, like the LA Times, can refuse to sell you advertising space -- and can certainly refuse to publish your letter to the editor or op ed. The same applies to TV and radio, and cable -- except for the local access channels (which is why, among other reasons they are so important).<BR/><BR/>ATT, by contrast, did not have that right -- nor did it raise those concerns with the ACLU. Everyone who wanted one could have a phone; and once you got it, you could say anything you wanted over the phone.<BR/><BR/>This is what I have called "the separation of content and conduit." It should be enough that an owner can suck money out of both ends of the wire (those who provide programming for cable, and the subscribers who pay to get it) without also having an ownership (and therefore censorship) interest in the content of the programming.<BR/><BR/>Now apply all of that to the Internet and its future and think about it.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467682953748756539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1155411705169095542006-08-12T14:41:00.000-05:002006-08-12T14:41:00.000-05:00Sickofspin: Thanks for weighing in. While I feel n...Sickofspin: Thanks for weighing in. While I feel neither inclined nor obliged to come to the defense of today's corporate journalism, I'm afraid "the good old days" might have been no more to your liking than today. It was Mark Twain who observed many years ago that "If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed; if you <I>do</I> read the newspapers you are misinformed." And Thomas Jefferson, you'll recall, went into office saying, "If I had to choose between newspapers without government or government without newspapers I would not hesitate to choose the former." Upon leaving office he could find nothing good to say about them. Compared to the standards of the late 18th and early 19th Century journalism today's media is the poster child for "fair and balanced."Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467682953748756539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1155411392746418342006-08-12T14:36:00.000-05:002006-08-12T14:36:00.000-05:00John: There are many ways of communicating without...John: There are many ways of communicating without verbiage -- either spoken or written. A catcher uses hand signals to communicate with the pitcher. A blinking yellow light communicates "caution." The arts -- architecture, sculpture, music -- are non-verbal forms of communication. A farmer may call hogs with a human sound that involves no words. A mime, or a dancer, is communicating with human movement and no words, which gives rise to litigation over nude dancing. And so it is that burning a flag, or a draft card, is also communicating an idea. And certainly I would have to include a Hawkeye flag in that category.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467682953748756539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1155236273187364152006-08-10T13:57:00.000-05:002006-08-10T13:57:00.000-05:00I have found myself thinking in circles after read...I have found myself thinking in circles after reading your post, usually coming down on the side of Justice Berger. I think "the press" the framers speak of has to be the printing press, and not the group of people commonly referred to as "the media," or "the press." If not, then the Amendment does not identify what "freedom" is given to "the press." It seems that if the framers intended to provide special rights to an institutionalized group of people, they would have said "freedom of the press TO [protect sources, access government officials, etc.].<BR/><BR/>Of course, if you accept Stewart's position, the inclusion of both speech (spoken word) and press (printed word) would seem to preclude the extension of this freedom to other forms of expression (dance, burning of draft cards, etc.). I suppose the courts have come down on the side of protecting all forms of expressive conduct, and giving both media members and non-members generally coextensive rights (i.e. Judy has no right to protect Scooter).<BR/><BR/>Could "freedom of the press" mean that the government has no right to regulate the medium (old = printing press, new = coaxial cable). Could the framers have been that prescient to see the extensive problems that new forms of media would present: newspapers, cable television - the medium is the message; telephone - the medium is not the message; internets connections--????. If net neutrality fails, and internet providers gain the freedom to filter information, will a constitutional challange to that filtration succeed? I have absolutely no idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1155167533153230502006-08-09T18:52:00.000-05:002006-08-09T18:52:00.000-05:00"What is 'the press'"?That's an excellent question..."What is 'the press'"?<BR/><BR/>That's an excellent question. It used to mean honorable journalism, media organizations simply reporting the news in a straight-forward fashion, responsibly, and objectively. <BR/><BR/>These days however, mainstream media reporting has become editorialized and selectively edited. I contend that more and more mainstream media sources are feeding us only the news they wish us to hear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1155150803088195792006-08-09T14:13:00.000-05:002006-08-09T14:13:00.000-05:00While you are at it what does speech mean?When the...While you are at it what does speech mean?<BR/><BR/>When the ammendment was adopted if someone gave a speech it was transcribed and the edited transcription copied or printed either in the record, in a newspaper or some other printed form.<BR/><BR/>When mechanical and electronic transcription became available the transcriptions were of the original speech. <BR/><BR/>One can read aloud from a newspaper converting it into speech. When I was a child they used to read the Sunday comics over the radio which suggests that an editorial cartoon can be converted into speech.<BR/><BR/>In other words an idea can be expressed verbally either by speaking or singing,in writing and in the form of an image or a set of images. My view is that all of these are protected forms of discouse.<BR/><BR/>However I am confused about how buring a flag becomes a form of discourse. Would it be a protected form of discouse for someone from ISU were to burn a Hawkeye flag?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com