News-Record.com

As usual JR writes his own rules.

New rule #1: All speech for it to be really "free" must be balanced and can in no way advocate one opinion or course of action over another.

For instance; writing in Dec. "41 that the Japanese were bad for bombing Pearl, not correct, not free.
They may have had a perfectly good reason. Just because we may not know it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Same for 9/11. So these radical Wahabbi guys who teach death to USA bomb NYC. They may have had a good reason. The guys at the WTC may not have known what they are, but any one-sided view like it was bad or something is incorrect and unfree"

We'll get it, John. Be patient.

"History is written by the winners" Alex Haley

Japan did have a good reason to bomb Pearl Harbor. They were trying to assert their dominance in the Asian Pacific region. That was their Sphere of Influence and felt that the USA had no business being there. They lost the war and so we get to write the history. Was the potential loss of a million American soldiers a good reason to drop the Atom bombs? I think so, but I bet the Japanese don't.

The terrorist also had a good reason according to their radical view of Islam. We are infidels and their belief is that their world will be better without us in it.

I'm not happy with the loss of life from any of the above "reasons" but that does not mean they were not good to the people that thought them at the time.

Now I'm beginning to maybe see what JR means. For speech to be really "free" it must be free off all selfish, ethnocentric ideaology that should it become manifest would result in potential harm to other humen beings.

OMMMMmmmmmmm.

Hari Krishna. Hari Rama

Really, skeet, as you did in the comments field of the previous post, it would be more honest and open if you filed your comments under one fake name, rather than a bunch of them. I know that you want readers to think that there are a lot of people who think like you do, but commenting under a variety of names isn't the way to do it.

As always. You like to focus on something irrelevant, which for a newspaper editor, one would think would not be desirable. I'm trying to help create interest and give the appearence of traffic on your blog. On the other hand, I guess you could be concerned that there really is a Deepak Robinson out there and I did an I.D. theft.

Ax, I think we may have to amend Haley's statement that history is written by the victors to "history is written by the editors."

ps. I was going to use an alternative fake name but it would have been...well...fake.

OK, let's talk free speech.
Do you think if I were an anti-semetist and I wrote all kinds of crap about Hitler being right for burning Jews (which I think is a crime and I hope he burns in hell), do you think any of that gets published in my newspaper. Do you think I would be at home the next day? Yeah right. I would either be in Guantanamo or dead. The US media is controlled by pro-Israeli Zyonist power (not Jews, but Zyonists). They tell you what THEY want you to hear and show you what THEY want you to see. Go distribute a DVD claiming the holocaust was fake and a lie and see if you will find a single newspaper that would distribute it and then come and talk to me about free speech in America.

blenak, the only thing I would agrue with is a DVD saying the holocaust was fake is NOT TRUE. A dvd showing schools based on a radical interpretation of Islam that teach destruction of the US appear to be true.

I happen to agree with JR's decision not to distribute the DVD, mainly because most people know already that it's contents are true and it's only purpose appears to be inflammatory or political and not informative.

I did disagree with JR saying the DVD distributors were not exercising "free" speech.

Skeet, you missed the whole "free speech" point. Our constitutional guarantee of a right to free speech protects us from the government suppression of free expression. It doesn't mean that a newspaper HAS to publish anything you want, even if you pay for it!

The Philadelphia Inquirer tried to justify it by saying "We determined it to be an appropriate form of free speech." So what! Just because it's protected from government suppression as free speech and someone is paying you to distribute it, doesn't make it right or reasonable to do so. I doubt the Inquirer would accept paid racist or anti-Semitic hate literature from the KKK. How is this any different?

After the initial disclaimer on the DVD that "We aren't saying that ALL Muslims are violent", that pretense is cast aside while the rest of the DVD tries to make the case that violence is an integral part of ALL Islamic teaching. That's no more true of Islam than it is of Christianity!

You're damn right it's only purpose is inflammatory and political, which is why it's the responsible decision NOT to become a tool of the propagators. I agree with JR, that it's the others who are hiding behind the 1st amendment, to shirk the duty they have as publishers to exercise that freedom with responsibility. Free speech doesn't give us the right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater either. That would be irresponsible too.

http://www.hahmed.com/blog/2008/09/28/obsession-radical-islams-war-against-the-west-a-vile-piece-of-propaganda/

David, I think you must have missed that I agreed with JR not distributing the DVD.

John,

You have every right as an editor not to distribute "Obsession." That's a component of your free speech. You have every right not to take their money if they want to pay for the advertising space. That's another component of your free speech.

You have every right to censor an advertiser, if that's what you want to do, as long as you are not the government. It's your paper, you make the rules.

But you should not denigrate the producers' free speech rights to seek outlets for the film, including as paid newspaper inserts. You should be as willing to defend them as your own newspaper. What you might have done is to invite the "other side" in this debate to purchase comparable ad space. If they really couldn't afford to, you could have published their point of view on the front page.

This is what news editors used to call "comforting the afflicted." A rich guy can buy a billboard saying X, and maybe Not-X can't afford a billboard, but no one can stop an editor from publishing Not-X's message on the front page.

In short, you should have come down on the side of more speech, not less. I haven't seen the film, but it's possible that it makes a contribution to public awareness of a public issue.

If newspaper editors aren't free speech absolutists, nobody will be.

Vail Beach,

I think you're missing the point here. This was a paid advertisement of somebody's opinion, not a letter to the editorial page. The News & Record did make the right choice here. As a life-long reader of this paper, I don't want it to become a blockade runner for biased political propaganda. It also puts the newspaper's credibility to test if they are being funded by political organizations. This "Clarion Fund" that released the dvds does not release much info about who their board members are and who sponsors them financially.

Bravo, sir. You made the right call. At a time of racial tension on my college campus in the early 70s, when I was editor of the campus paper, I rejected an ad from a group that I believed was promoting a racist point-of-view. I got a lot of heat, but I always felt it was the right decision. Yours is much more significant.

Today, I came home from work and I found in my mailbox a copy of “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.”

I have never felt so violated, so disgusted to have received such filth in my mailbox. Fear and hatred-inducing materials have no business being delivered in the U.S. mail, a country that was formed in part, to provide religious freedom. These materials in no way provided a balanced understanding of the religion of Islam – and only feed the paranoia of the uninformed.

Islam is the second-largest religion in the world; the third-largest right here in the United States. Unfortunately, because of fear and lack of understanding, harassment and discrimination against U.S. Muslims are on the rise. The Islamic faith is based on a doctrine of peace; it is a religion with roots very close to Christianity. Muslims don’t consider terrorists to be Muslim; in fact, they are considered the very opposite: terrorists are the enemies of Islam, because they are branding their religion as one of violence. A very few extremists have affected too many people’s views of this peaceful religion.

I applaud the News & Record's decision NOT to distribute this DVD. Thank you for carefully considering the kind of advertising you choose to run. My regard of your paper has been greatly strenghtened by your decision and your values.

Yesterday, I was ashamed of my country and its people. Thank you, News & Record, for restoring some of my faith.