Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, in an interview with MSNBC on March 25, 2010, spoke of the "fine line" we have in our society between allowing "free speech" and maintaining a civil society not dominated by violence. Speaking for myself, I believe that we need to allow the broadest latitude to our right of free speech, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. When someone utters an outrage, buy handbags online must be with consequence. Those consequences can be myriad, and totally justified.
Obviously, calling your spouse or parent an unflattering name can have negative consequence to your family. "Incitement to riot" is an often-offered example of speech, which is not permissible. Still, this is normally limited to oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief that urges the commission of an act of immediate violence.
buy handbags cheap is for this reason that Chuck Todd could say during the Giffords interview of March 25, 2010, rather matter-of-factly: "Campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years," as if there is nothing wrong with buy handbags online cheap. This is where I get off the media bus.
Our major media outlets today can reach a billion listeners in less than a second handbags online cheap. When they allow an advocate for violence to say something on their "air," they are walking that "fine line" of what is ethical to communicate to their audience. The media is free to choose what they publish. They have no obligation to allow vitriolic speech on their "air."
handbags cheap is a sad fact of the human condition that unbalanced individuals exist everywhere. Shouldn't media outlets recognize their role, and consider the possibility that they might incite or provide ideas to such crazy people by giving giving advocates of violence access to media audiences on a global basis?
没有评论:
发表评论