More privacy restrictions or fair decision?

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
jeffcpix
Senior MemberPosts: 1,109
Like?
Re: The US first amendment is not absolute
In reply to darklamp, 7 months ago

darklamp wrote:

The US first amendment is not an absolute right to do what you want regardless of what damage it causes.

This self evident fact is shown by the fact that courts do issue damages against media outlets that cause damage, in the legal sense.

You can seek ( and they have granted ) injunctions against publishing.

So this "right" that Americans are so found of shouting about is, de facto, not an absolute right.

I find it amusing the US citizens rely on media owners to be open and fair, when they're provably interested only in profit and will do anything for it. Without the fear of being sued for damages, these greedy people would print anything, true or false, for their own gain.

Why do you think the first amendment should be absolute ? Because you're told that by the media every day. Of course they'll say that, just as any business will try to claim that there should be no limits on what it can do.

Limits are a necessity in a mature society.

Check out what the Australian government has to say about absolute rights:

http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Absoluterights.aspx

Do you consider India to be a mature society? How about Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? Czarist Russia? Ancient Sparta?

Rights? Do you mean what the people in power say they'll let you get away with today... but not necessarily tomorrow?

Have you ever confronted Leviathan?

America once stood for the concept of LIMITED GOVERNMENT -- I guess now it's just another 'mature society': Limited rights, unlimited government.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Ah!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow