November 14, 2011
1. Situation:
Many Americans take pride in our right to free speech. We are able to speak our minds and contribute to the “marketplace of ideas” in many areas of debate or concern. It doesn’t matter whether it be concerning the pros and cons of stem cell research, one’s stance on illegal immigration or whether or not little Suzy’s 8 o’clock bedtime could stand to be knocked back to 9. We are all able to voice our opinions on any subject matter and are free to engage in friendly debate with one another (though I’m pretty sure Suzy is outnumbered by her parents 2:1 on this one).
So in criticizing viewpoints or presenting opinion involving another individual, where is the line drawn? When you’re the one suddenly put on the spot and become a target for criticism, should you have the right to defend yourself through the media?
Consider this: It’s that time of year again — election time at BGSU. USG has been very vocal in their campaigns this year and Timmy Turner, in particular, has been campaigning like crazy. Recently, he had spoken out against opponent, Bobby Brown in various interviews — both in print in the BG News and via broadcast on WBGU. Turner voraciously criticized his opponent’s views on a multitude of political issues and claimed that he urged his friends to attend UT. Upon catching wind of this, Brown was furious — he would NEVER let a friend go to UT. Brown wrote letters to both WBGU and the BG News, demanding he be given time to publish a response to Turner. Should Brown be given a chance to reply?
2. Legal Background:
In Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s fairness doctrine, which provided that broadcasters of content via television and radio be required to air fair discussion of public issues. Red Lion Broadcasting had aired a harsh criticism of an author’s work and he wanted a chance to respond. The FCC demanded that Red Lion provided the plaintiff with a copy/transcript of the broadcast and Red Lion refused. The Court ruled that the doctrine used by the FCC “enhanced” First Amendment rights and helped to ensure that public broadcasts remained fair and balanced.
In Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974), however, the Court ruled differently for criticism published through print. The Miami Herald had published two editorials criticizing the campaign of candidate Tornillo. Tornillo drafted responses to the material published by the paper and demanded they be published. After the paper refused, Tornillo sued based on a Florida statute that insisted political candidates be granted the right to have responses to criticism be published. The Court ruled that this statute was unconstitutional, as it violated the right of editors to choose what material appeared in the their publication.
3. Questions! (For your consideration…)
– What are the differences between being able to exercise a “right to reply” via broadcast or print?
– Are regulations that grant this “right” constitutional? Do they infringe free speech?
– Do you think Tornillo’s responses should have been published by the paper?
8 thoughts on “Should you have a “Right to Reply”?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 14th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
1. Broadcast media is a powerful and pervasive medium. There is (“was” actually because the Internet has changed this) limited broadcast capabilities with television and radio.)Also, airways are to be considered public space. For all of these reasons the government must regulate broadcasting more than it regulates print.
2. I don’t think that these regulations infringe on free speech, but rather I think they encourage free speech. Imagine if the only people who had access to television were the rich and powerful, and they had no obligation to diffuse any more ideas than the ideas that benefited them. (Actually it is like this today, but you get my point). I think many rules similar to this that are enforced, are there to keep some equality in society.
3. I am not sure if I can say that Red Lion Should have been forced to give Tornillo’s response, but they should have done it for the ethical reasons. It is not ethically sound to personally attack another human’s character on television without giving that person the right to defend him or herself. (This type of behavior it prevalent on TV today, for instance Nancy Grace, but I think it is shameful.) Do we need a law though to keep it from happening? I am not decided on this issue.
November 16th, 2011 at 9:11 am
I don’t think these regulations infringe on free speech at all! In fact, like Darcy, I think the regulations encourage free speech. The “right to reply” regulation facilitates free speech & debate because it gives those who may not have a way to have their reply heard a chance to defend themselves. This doesn’t infringe on anyone’s right to say anything they wish; on the contrary, it gives anyone the right to reply to anything someone says about them. MORE speech is being done with this rule.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:07 am
1. Broadcast and print media area treated differently concerning the “right to reply,” like Darcy said, based on their origin. Print media is much more loosely regulated, dating back to the First Amendment right to a free press, and editors have full discretion over what is printed in a newspaper. Broadcast media, however, is considered “public,” and until the time of the Internet, had a limited amount of space to use for broadcasts.
2. I don’t think these regulations hinder free speech at all. In fact, they are most certainly constitutional, based on the right to a free press. There is no right to a free broadcasting system, which is why broadcast is more strictly regulated, to ensure it can be as fair as possible.
3. No, I do not think Tornillo’s responses should have been published in the newspaper just based on the fact that he wrote them. If the editor found them interesting enough and suitable enough to be published, and desired to do so, I would support that decision. However, as a print journalism major, I find the idea of a newspaper being forced to print something very unsettling. Newspapers are free and unregulated, and should never be mandated to print something, based on freedoms guaranteed through the First Amendment.
November 17th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Broadcasting is different compared to print journalism. Broadcasting must be licensed, can be forced to air certain things, and can air indecent material but only within certain hours. The government regulates broadcasting more than print. Broadcasters use public airwaves and an impact on audience, particular children.
I think free speech was encouraged. I do not think the regulations on infringe on free speech.
No, I do not believe Tornillo’s reaction should have been published in the newspaper.
November 17th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
When it comes to whether or not a person has a right to reply, there are only certain circumstances in which people are actually entitled to having their material published. In print media, there is no such thing as a newspaper having to print what someone sends them. This can be seen in the Miami v. Tornillo case. If there was a rule that said people are entitled to get their writing published by a newspaper, it would violate the editor’s right to choose what material is in the publication.
For broadcast, however, there are different guidelines when it comes to political candidates. According to section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, when one legally qualified candidate for an elective office advertises on radio, TV or a cable system, another legally qualified candidate, who is running for the same office, can ask for an equal chance at that system or station. This rule is supposed to make it fair for each candidate, though it is up to the candidate himself to ask for an ad to be run.
November 17th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
I believe that everyone should have the right to reply wheather it be in print or broadcast. However, there are restrictions on what can be said on broadcast because by using broadcast, young audiences can easily hear and see inappropriate messages. This is why there is less restrictions on print.
I dont think that regulations that grant the right reply are unconstitutional at all. In my opinion my actually promote the right to free speech by allowing canidates to respond to arguments and statements.
I do agree that Tornillo should be able to reply, but the fact that the criticism did not come from his opponent does not mean that he has the right to reply. Personally, I dont think that it was in very good taste of the newspaper to publish the criticism even if it was in a editorial, but the paper does have the right to do that.
November 17th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
1. Everyone should be able to express an opinion in a broadcast or print publication. Because the nature of the content may be inappropriate for children, restrictions on content (such as time, manner, etc.) may be enforced on broadcast. However, there should be less restrictions on print due to the level of education required and the level of access of the audience.
2. With a “right to reply” response in broadcast encourages the right to free speech, rather than infringing upon free speech. This gives people the opportunity or the chance to give their point of view. If it were the other way around, then it would infringe upon free speech. But in fact, this promotes it.
3. I don’t think that Tornillo’s response should have been published in the paper because it was in poor taste. Not everything that is submitted is worthy of being published.
November 25th, 2011 at 12:30 am
Because of the regulations placed on broadcast to air certain content, like public broadcasting and children shows, it makes sense that there would also be a “right to reply” regulation as well. Because there is more opportunity for children and “sensitive audiences” to hear the broadcasting, there should be more regulation.
As for print, there is less regulation based on the First Amendment’s freedom of press, as a few people mention above. Rightfully, not only should the editor have the ability to decide whether to include the response, but the editor should have the right to withhold a statement or response that does not provide thought-provoking or print-worthy content.