War and Media
While learning about the Spanish-American-Cuban-Filipino War and the Great War we have discussed issues surrounding media and speech. What dangers arise when the U.S. government allows citizens to speak freely during a time of war? What dangers arise when the U.S. government does not allow citizens to speak freely during a time of war?
posted by Crosby | 9:05 PM
6 Comments:
I think that the government has the right to censor the media to a certain extent, and only during times of war. War is a tricky time for all countries, and staying united as much as possible is essential for disagreements to be settled humanly and orderly.
If the U.S. government allows citizens to speak extremely freely during time of war, it will end up almost becoming an anarchy. People should respect the authority of their government officials, after all, didn't we vote for them?
I think that people should put their upmost trust with their government and trust that they will make the right decisions for our country.
I agree with Janie because if there wasn't some censorship I think a lot of people would freak out, but also if there is too much censorship we lose the bases of American values. One of which is the Constitution. It talks about freedom of speech. My question is, to what extent dose freedom of speech count by definition in the constitution.
I disagree with both of the previous commentors when I say that I don't think the government has any right to censor the media, especially in a time of war.
To argue that it is important the government censors the media during war so that the country can stay united operates on the assumption that the war is actually worth fighting. After all, why should a country unite behind a war that isn't worth fighting? Iif the government decides to take us to war and then censors the media to sell that message, we the people will never know any better. Rather than begetting anarchy, a free exchange of information and openness and candor during wartime are the only ways the public can know whether or not a war is worth fighting. And if our nation's finest are to fight and die, we best ask our government why. If the answer is not satisfactory, we should oppose the war rather than unite behind it.
I think it is dangerous to blindly trust that our government will make the best decisions for our country. History fairly clearly shows that often it has not. I favor more of what Ronald Reagan called "trust but verify." We should trust that our government has our best interests at heart, or at least hope that they do, but constantly check to make sure the actions they are taking really do support our best interests. A well educated and involved populace is the cornerstone of a successful democracy.
connorr2013, I'm glad you bring up the constitution. It certainly does guarantee both freedom of speech and of the press, but nowhere does it say "except in times of war." Also, could you explain your last question? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with Janie and Connor on both sides of the argument. The constitution does state that we have freedom of speech and of the press. There always comes a point though, when enough is enough. Knowledge of war while your country is involved in one can easily be described as ignorance is bliss. The less you know, the less you have to worry about, the easier you can live your life. This is an important concept but if we did not know some things that have to do with war, it would be unfair to us as U.S. citizens. We should be able to know what is going on but only to a certain extent. The government is there to handle things that your average citizen cannot and does not want to deal with. That is there job so let's let them do it. If the people always got to know everything that was going on, things would be in chaos with all the opinionated and worried people out there. You should also be able to voice your opinion but not if it is extremely arousing to others around you; if it is a dividing thing to say. If the people’s opinion is not voiced though, we would not have a say in what is going on and that is a total disrespect to our constitution and the principles that this country is built on.
BenH, in explanation to my last question, I was wondering how the constitution defines the freedom of speech and how much the Supreme Court is aloud to twist it.
Post a Comment
<< Home