1st Amendment Ethics
Just in case your American history is rusty, the First Amendment of our Constitution states:
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. (Italics mine)
Now, unless you are media celibate, you are quite aware of the fact that Cho Seung-Hui took a little break from his slaughtering spree to make a media manifesto to send to president of NBC. The powers that be in the NBC corporate HQ, after “much consideration and debate” decided that it was in the best interest of the public to (or was it their ratings?) air several morsels of the manifesto. A particularly lovely photo shared with the public was the view down the barrel of the gun that most likely was the last thing some of those killed saw. Now that the general public is somewhat perturbed by such images, NBC is retracting much of the information they were showing.
So the question I pose for you is this: Should there ever be a limit on our freedoms when morals and ethics are involved?
Perhaps, Right Girl. But first, we have to define and list all morals and ethics in all possible circumstances. Unfortunately, there are too many, and no two people share the exact opinion on what’s ethical and moral. Just general opinions, but we’d need specifics to identify when such immoral or unethical acts are committed.
You could argue the same thing about the 9-11 footage, watching the planes over and over slam into the towers.
I think that Obviously NBC was the right to air any footage that they want…but if the families or people want to complain or boycott what they feel is done in bad taste, then they have the right.
Surprisingly I agree with PR.
Morals are too subjective. If people have a problem with how someone is using their freedom of speech, they should be vocal, and let the market judge them. If people vote with their dollars or their ratings, folks like NBC will get the message.
Actually I think that a part of our current system regarding free speech is actually working. There are checks and balances in action, as one person exercises their freedom and others respond with their freedom of speech. I agree with PR and existingthing that morals and ethics are far too subjective in the general sense to have the expectation that all people use a specific rule to exercise their freedom of speech. I was just curious as to what others thought of it all.
NB who?
GoingThere