I was reading an AP report, 9 Killed in Truck Bomb Blast in Baghdad , and something caught my eyes. What I want to know is this; does the constitution allow for such an action here in the US? I mean can the president order a news outlet to be closed down under an circumstance?
I think if a newspaper calls on people to murder others, then it might be possible to shut it down, because public safety would override freedom of the press, just like you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater (unless of course there is a fire). But I'm no lawyer.
Bingo. It was closed down to help our beloved troops (we alll love them right?) stay a bit safer by not allowing enemy propaganda to stay in print.. The Allied forces did similar in WWII, and replaced it with "liberating force" media.
The question I have is...why does the Bush Administration welcome free speech in Iraq while they muzzle free speech in the United States?
I think you may be wrong on both counts here.... The Bush Admin shut down that paper. Having a protest zone does not muzzle free speech. In fact, it amplifies it should anyone care to listen. I don't think that <b>disruptive</b> speech should be equated with free speech.
So, we're down to qualifying the Bill of Rights, are we? Free speech is free speech. There were both an American Nazi Party and an American Communist Party at one time in this country. If we are to muzzle "disruptive" speech, why do you think both parties were allowed to exist? Why was the Ku Klux Klan allowed to exist. PS: The American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party no longer have very many followers not because their freedom of speech was muzzled, but because they used this freedom to put forth their beliefs and agendas and American citizens rejected them.
I meant "disruptive" as in "bad manners" which seek to upstage or otherwise disrupt the intended speaker. I have no problem with disagreements. I don't seek to admonish them. I am seeking civility.
I think they were in a lose-lose situation. Cut the news outlet and people would protest. discontent and distrust would arise, not to mention the hypocrisy of the act. Keep it, and it would incite some to anger against the U.S. regime (the antiFox news).
That is what bothers me. If this scenario you painted is the case why would the present Iraqi government give them the power to re-open the "alleged" (or otherwise) business of promoting the murder of Coalition troops? Or is it just lip service? Has the news paper company and its editors repented? Has there been anytime in our history when News Outlets especially during ante bellum America promoted the negative treatment of others? Were they closed down as well? Or is it just different times - different approaches?
