Robert F. Kennedy Junior is suing the Associated Press, the Washington Post, Reuters and the BBC, claiming they all refuse to carry reports of what he says. Censorship, he alleges.
Oddly, I know this from a report on the NPR web site, where it also lists several examples of falsehoods he regularly proclaims in his campaign speeches.
News media are not obliged to carry detailed accounts of everything every candidate says every day. That's not censorship, it's news judgment. If every news media outlet were required to carry full details of every thing a politician says and does -- but only the positive stuff -- that would be media control.
Media can decide to carry only the negative stuff, but that also would be bias. Indeed, there are some news outlets that do just that, and the First Amendment says they can.
By the same token, readers and listeners can ignore them, and subscribe only to neutral media. Or they can choose to subscribe only to those outlets that share their biases.
There is always a choice.
The NPR report also writes that claims of censorship are "a core grievance of many conservatives and liberals who see social media policies to combat misinformation, conspiracy theories and election information as infringing on their free speech rights."
But are we they free to spread lies, and force others to expand the spread?
Yes and no.
They are free to lie, but there is punishment if the lie harms others. And no, we cannot force others to spread lies for us. They too have free speech, and with that freedom comes the right to be silent. Others also have the right to call out the liar.
Oddly, I know this from a report on the NPR web site, where it also lists several examples of falsehoods he regularly proclaims in his campaign speeches.
News media are not obliged to carry detailed accounts of everything every candidate says every day. That's not censorship, it's news judgment. If every news media outlet were required to carry full details of every thing a politician says and does -- but only the positive stuff -- that would be media control.
Media can decide to carry only the negative stuff, but that also would be bias. Indeed, there are some news outlets that do just that, and the First Amendment says they can.
By the same token, readers and listeners can ignore them, and subscribe only to neutral media. Or they can choose to subscribe only to those outlets that share their biases.
There is always a choice.
The NPR report also writes that claims of censorship are "a core grievance of many conservatives and liberals who see social media policies to combat misinformation, conspiracy theories and election information as infringing on their free speech rights."
But are we they free to spread lies, and force others to expand the spread?
Yes and no.
They are free to lie, but there is punishment if the lie harms others. And no, we cannot force others to spread lies for us. They too have free speech, and with that freedom comes the right to be silent. Others also have the right to call out the liar.
No comments:
Post a Comment