No, we don't have to publish you because of 'freedom of speech'

Tom Jackson
Apr 7, 2014

 

The other day, we got an email of complaint from a guy who calls himself "jacksonbrowne1960." I'm guessing it wasn't the singer, although I don't know.

Mr. Browne seemed to be unhappy, apparently because we removed at least one of his comments from our website. He wrote, in part: 

"It is interesting that you have taken a stance that you have fought against for years.

"I am talking about suppression!  You are no better than a communist government that tries to suppress the masses.  If one speaks their objections
against the SR you block them and remove their post ... Again, please remember that people fought long and hard to have freedom of
speech and give us the same opportunities through your publication."
 
I see this silly argument over and over again from people who apparently don't know what the phrase "freedom of speech" actually means. 
 
The First Amendment, what people usually mean when they talk about "freedom of speech," means that the government can't censor the paper. If I criticize President Obama in my blog, he can't arrest me or shut down our website.
 
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with whether the Register, a private company, is obligated to publish anything. The editors can, and do, decide whether they are going to put Tom Jackson's article on page one, put it deep inside the paper or not publish it at all. They "suppress" any number of syndicated columns, cartoons and comics by picking the ones they like, and leaving out the ones they don't like. News about the New York Mets is routinely "suppressed" on our sports pages, so that we have room to run articles about the Cleveland Indians. 
 
jacksonbrowne1960's complaint seems particularly odd given that modern technology means that no one is muzzled. There is nothing to keep him from going on Twitter, or Blogger, or Wordpress, or any number of other free Internet platforms, and saying pretty much anything he likes. 
 
 
 
 

Comments

Contango

Re: "The First Amendment, what people usually mean when they talk about 'freedom of speech,' means that the government can't censor the paper."

@ Mr. Jackson:

The definition is broader than 'just' freedom of the press:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

IMO, you're spot on with the remainder of your analysis and observations.

Licorice Schtick

Yes.

But what a mess we have. Jackson refers to "people who apparently don't know what the phrase "freedom of speech" actually means." But that's whatever the whims of the Supreme Court says. And they say that money is speech, so that paying politicians for their votes is tantamount to free speech. This absurd construct has made a joke of our "democracy," turning it into a plutocracy, and the founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. What good is free speech if plutocrat-owned "media" drowns it out? Even formerly public "public media" is now corrupted by private money, so that the public interest is now fully marginalized.

There is no path back to justice, short of impeachment of certain corrupt Supreme Court Justices, and a Constitution Convention uncorrupted by money so the the government can again be of The People, by The People, for The People.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

We can both invoke Supreme Court term limits and have a non-"runaway" Convention of the States. In fact one of those two is currently happening and so far about half the states are on board with laws supporting and limiting delegates' roles. The fact it hasn't been brought up in major outlets (that I know of) is actually a blessing so it continues to be under the radar enough to keep it pure and from the squeals of Congress.

To follow its progress: http://conventionofstates.com/

Contango

Re: "a Constitution Convention uncorrupted by money,"

Ain't gonna happen.

The politicos have been attempting to remove money from politics for over one hundred yrs. and they will never succeed.

Furgitaboutit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam...

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

- John Wanamaker

pntbutterandjelly

@ Licorice Schtick: + 10 (Thank you)

huronguy2

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).

mikeylikesit

i have had comments removed before also. i understand that there are rules on this forum that we must follow. i also know that the folks at sandusky register can remove comments for no reason at all, if they want to, not that they do, but they can. seems to me they are pretty lenient with us most of the time..

Blue.Streaker

Providing a forum for public discussion is a great service.

However, allowing it to be anonymous makes the comments section no more than a graffiti wall.

Allowing anonymous posters to defame others with no consequence is just a damn shame. You are guilty of selling your birthright for a bowl of gruel.

mikeylikesit

... said the anonymous commenter..

Peninsula Pundit

Oh, the Irony of it All!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

It is a conundrum for sure. When I created my account here I was on the fence originally. What if someone didn't like what I had to say and they decided to break my windows? Damage my car? Burn down my house? Then I saw that I was getting too paranoid and that someone who is that petty is going to use any excuse anyway and the things I have to say are more important than replaceable physical items. (That said I'd prefer to not have my things broken, heh.)

By posting like this it helps me help myself from narrow thinking or selfishness. I may as well be speaking on behalf of all my customers when I post under this name, and I assure you their interests and lifestyles are vast. So I must be thoughtful, responsible, and try to find and appeal to the common denominator that unifies us all and shouldn't be partisan in nature. We all deserve better, not just some.

I'd like to think I've done a good job so far, but it's not for me to judge. I haven't heard complaints in the shop about it. In fact I often use the comment section to teach the people here about what is going on and also (in many cases) how to NOT talk about/defend/point out an aspect of the story. I'd recommend you do the same with people in your family or at work Blue.Streaker. Turn people onto this site and have them read along as the discussion grows from the stories.

You'll find your friends/family/coworkers will develop their favorite "characters" here to watch for and read. I'll say that some commentators are better examples than others and are infamous in their own rights. We kind of wait for responses as NASCAR fans await an accident - hope it doesn't happen but when it does PHEEEEW! You and yours may well do the same.

Stop It

+1

Pterocarya frax...

Poor jacksonbrowne1960...he comes on here spouting conservative talking points all the time, but not even sharp enough to realize that the real Jackson Browne is a hard core liberal.

jacksonbrowne1960 is "The Pretender".

Peninsula Pundit

When did he pick up the '1960?'

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I agree with you, Pter. Dropping petty partisan one-liners is hardly a way to earn credibility or respect in these forums. As you have pointed out, such behavior is completely ineffective at convincing others who don't think like you, and makes the poster look ridiculous to everyone else.

I hope that this article and comments like ours are taken a bit more seriously.

grumpy

Re: "Dropping petty partisan one-liners is hardly a way to earn credibility or respect in these forums. As you have pointed out, such behavior is completely ineffective at convincing others who don't think like you, and makes the poster look ridiculous to everyone else."

Somebody's ears must be burning,.. if it didn't go right over his head...

Pterocarya frax...

A bunch of conservative posters on here made a big deal of me making one off the cuff negative remark about a state representative that was in poor taste. I was called many horrible names in the comments on that story both before and after I apologized for the comment. I went on to explain the issues I have with that elected official have to do with his votes on specific issues, and named those votes.

Does that make that comment right? Of course it doesn't. But at least I owned up to it, which is more than I can say for haters like Darwin's Choice, Dr. Information, Donegan (who steals Michael Savage's liberalism is a mental disorder line), etal.

Maybe you, grumpy, think you are better than that, but when you make comments like "if it didn't go right over his head" shows that you agree with that mindset that liberals are inferior.

The day you quit calling Big Dog and the president and the first lady names, and start calling out some of those conservatives I just mentioned, is the day you might have some moral authority to make negative comments about me.

grumpy

Re: "The day you quit calling Big Dog and the president and the first lady names, and start calling out some of those conservatives I just mentioned, is the day you might have some moral authority to make negative comments about me."

I have never called obama anything but obama, same with bush, or obama's wife, actually I don't think I have ever referred to obama's wife, or any President's wife. With big dog, he started calling me pooh when I first started posting, I ignored it for a month and it didn't stop. I got tired of it and started calling him piddle puppy. Now he rarely calls me pooh and I rarely call him piddles. I guess he likes it as much as I did. When he stops I will. You can go back and look and see I didn't post in the article you ripped the state representative. I don't know him, he isn't my representative and I know little about him. Just about he only times big dog does more than bumper sticker replies are when he copies and pastes either left wingnut blogs, which really do lean way far left or opinion pieces either from Huff-Po or Salon... rarely he cherry picks a small piece from Wiki. Which would be fine but he never gives a citation for them, and whines when others use an opinion piece or wiki.

As far as thinking liberals are inferior, I have never written on here that all liberals are anything. I have made comment about individuals. I was talking about dog, not liberals. I know and am friends with several liberals, one is especially liberal, and the difference is we speak to each other and don't make general statements about all conservatives or liberals. If you read dogs comment you will see most if not all are general comment about all conservatives. You won't see that from my writings here. I will make comments about policies, "parties" (not the people in the parties, but the "parties"),votes, laws, taxes, and rarely individuals. I try not to lump people into groups that believe in lockstep, as few people agree with everting a "party" is supposedly for.

Donegan

I never said i hated you. I just stated you have a mental disorder and are against individual sovereignty vs a totalitarian centralized government aka liberalism. Which according to you is not about liberty at all but a police state that baby sits the citizens.

The Big Dog's back

I'm not trying to convince right wingnuts of anything. I know better. It will never, ever work. As soon as other non right wingnut posters understand this, the better we are as a country and can move forward. You have to convince yourself that being a right wingnut is nothing but a dead end street.

rbenn

is that the only thing you know how to say? Every comment you say the same thing, shows your damn ignorance

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

If you feel my agreement with Pter applied to you, so be it. But your prejudice against others is baffling and sad. Don't get too busy screaming at others who can only scream back (the other "one-shotters") when there are others who are willing to listen if you'd give them the opportunity to do so. The kids always listen when mommy and daddy fight.

Now your advice I'm sure could be meaningful to other people. Just as being a left-wingnut is fruitless and a waste of one's time, talent, and resources. But be glad that you are preaching to the choir when it comes to me. I have none of the above three things to waste so have been anything but a right or left wingnut.

The Big Dog's back

My prejudice against others? Please explain.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

"I'm not trying to convince right wingnuts of anything. I know better."

You have pre-judged that either you are incapable of outreaching to others because of your own lack of resources or understanding, or, you have imposed a prejudice on a broadly-defined set of people that they are incapable of doing something that is common and rational to human beings everywhere. In addition to calling them names, you have dehumanized them as being incapable of holding a civil discussion using common terms in order to persuade them mentally, philosophically, morally, and/or emotionally.

"As soon as other non right wingnut posters understand this, the better we are as a country and can move forward."

You have the prejudice that what you say must be correct and the universal law of the land that all must flock to it. That your way you pre-judged as correct and right is the one and only path humanity must follow. If only everyone would think exactly like you we would have no problems. That is, technically, correct. It would be harmonious in its singularity. Unfortunately, your notion is alien to humanity and can never be achieved.

I appreciate your question spurring dialog and hope you find my answers timely and thorough. If you have any more I'll be happy to answer them for you.

mikeylikesit

good luck with big dog..

There you go again

Why bother even reading the comments from Big Dog? I skip the comments every time I come across them in these posts. Not worth reading the Trash Talk.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is a civil and rational person who can be shown that he doesn't need to tease, taunt, or hide under the skirt of a party in order to think and make points. It's up to Big Dog himself to disprove the standard against which I hold him.

We all may have opinions on his progress in doing so, but I won't lower the bar for him. He, unlike others (coasterfan for example, though I'd be happy if he broke that habit), actually bother to reply to questions and dialog. I respect that he is willing to give his time to throw something in on the conversation instead of using intermittent drive-by one-shots.

It's the same reason why I called out PBJ. Before a few days ago he seemed fine. Then he suddenly snapped or imploded and just went berserk here lobbing ham-fisted, partisan accusations and encouraging people to join a one-party system as a way to fix things.

Stop It

heh..it probably has been said in many texts before or after, but this one comes to mind about The Dog:

"And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

The Big Dog's back

I'm not prejudiced, I dislike all right wingnuts equally.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

This is why we can't have nice things.

SamAdams

I laughed...but you're right!

meowmix

With you BD--face it, to argue with HZ is fruitless. He displays all the signs of a person suffering from (well, actually, we're the ones doing the suffering by reading his posts) Narcissistic Personality Disorder as evidenced below by it's definition:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of grandiosity (either in fantasy or actual behavior), an overwhelming need for admiration. People with narcissistic personality disorder often display snobbish, disdainful, or patronizing attitudes.

I'm sure HZ has many mirrors and pools around his home so his can look at his magnificence at every turn. :}

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

The offer stands to actually come and see the person about whom you make so many presumptions.

From the Grave

Moderators have removed this comment before it was posted because they are psychic.

JMOP

LMAO!!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I admit I laughed at this!

JMOP

I've had comments censored before. It was about a Pizza contest. All I stated was I had two bad experiences with the second place winner. It was nothing bad, but the Register must have agreed my experience was bad, therefore they took it down.

People's names are slandered, thrown in the mud by commentators, but if I said the delivery person was two hours late, and I got burnt pizza, it was removed. I also stated I liked their pizza before that happened to me. When Roadhouse and Friendly's closed down, there were all the negative comments about their food and service and none were deleted. Diana's Deli kitchen was talked about negatively also, it had nothing to do with the story.

It's your right. I can't argue with that. Seems as though there is no rhyme or reason to some of the deletions, except for favoritism that this paper has.

Spy's picture
Spy

On top of the fact private companies can do what they please, when you sign up for a website and you agree to the terms of use. You should know what to expect because you agreed to them.

Whether or not the reasons for censoring a comment are just or not in your opinion is a whole another issue.

There are plenty of places to discuss news and politics on the internet without any moderation except for spam and illegal content, like on 4chan. But bear in mind this freedom also comes with downsides, like being very uncivil.

Stop It

Obviously, jacksonbrowne1960 did not read the "Mollom privacy policy" at the bottom of the add new comment box.

KURTje

While some say anonymously posting isn't good consider the posters who can put up facts about past, present, future events. The S.R. has the final say & yet they also know that they gain MUCH from many of us too. It is a 2-way street here. btw i've been deleted before.

SamAdams

A big part of the "problem" with freedom of speech (and the press and religion, etc.) is that too many people want to take advantage of it without understanding it at all. They want to be able to speak THEIR piece, but then make threats of business boycotts or worse when someone else speaks theirs and it disagrees. Freedom of speech isn't freedom if it doesn't include that with which you disagree! That does, by the way, include that which you find offensive.

The First Amendment, as Mr. Jackson says, is a prohibition against government. Yes, you have free speech, but it's up to YOU to find the venue! It is NOT up to The Sandusky Register to provide you with one.

bnjjad

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom if it doesn't include that with which you disagree!" - Exactly. So many people refuse to believe that others will have differing opinions and wish to express them and they hate it when they are brought forward.

ContraryAnn

Seems they forget with every "freedom" comes a thing called "responsibility".

First says "Congress shall make..." Doesn't say a thing about states or local governments - or SUPCO (see "Sullivan") with regard to media and publication.

So the SR has the supreme power Congress doesn't. The SR can shut you up with reason.

grumpy

Some folks think that the right of freedom of speech includes the right to an audience. YTou can step up on your soapbox on your own property, or on many public places and speak, if you aren't a good speaker, or if your message isn't at least interesting, you won't have much if any audience. If you make you own website you can say even more in an even wider access platform... if others wish to read it... if your writing or message sucks, you won't have an audience. You have a right to free speech, not the right to force others to listen or read. Right are things that don't require anything from other but to leave you do your thing, as soon as you require someone else to participate, it isn't a right but you are forcing others to do something. Go through the Bill of rights, nothing is required of others except to leave you be when you are exercising your RIGHTS.

Manowar

I for one happen to enjoy the comments most people write. The SR is very good at provoking a response from its readers. This article here for instance will spark a good response from the "regulars". Comical to say the least. However, my general opinion is that the SR works the public for these responses. Articles about people who are arrested for stupidity. Like the article of the lady who stole wine from Kroger because she thought she could get away with it. Complete with her smiling mugshot. How bout the police dash cam video w Sandusky cops chasing some lady around town after she kicked out here dad's windows. Pictures of fatal car crashes and murder scenes. They bring added stress and anguish to local families and then write a feel good story to cover up the insensitivity. Is that news? I think of the SR as our own personal National Enquirer. As for the freedom of speech thing...um we'll...whatever.

bnjjad

They do work the public for responses. It makes them money on page hits and selling papers. Every media company has a slant to try and sell themselves.

It can be very comical to read the comments here at times.

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

Skins against shirts, no goal posts…just keep kicking the ball around the field. Go team!

Thank God for the insanely fast setting on my scroll wheel.

Once upon a time I was the king of deleted comments, did I change or was it you?

Babo

"The First Amendment, what people usually mean when they talk about "freedom of speech," means that the government can't censor the paper. If I criticize President Obama in my blog, he can't arrest me or shut down our website."

This statement is only true if you have the resources and access to publicity to counter government First Amendment retaliation. Currently the Toledo Blade is proving that "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech" two separate rights contained within the First Amendment are easily abused by the government unless one has the resources to hire attorneys and a platform to generate the publicity for the cause.

Importantly the Press is granted expanded rights because of the important role the Press has in protecting everyone's First Amendment rights from the government and to educate the citizenry on public affairs. (The Fourth Estate) However, that important role requires the Press wield its powers responsibly.

In my opinion if the press chooses to omit certain stories out of fear of repercussions or does not allow subjects of stories and particularly subjects of government action an opportunity to tell their story; then the Press has failed in its role as the Fourth Estate and actually encourages government excesses and violations of citizens' constitutional rights.

Recently, the Sandusky Register has taken on with gusto its role in questioning government in parts of its reading area. The newspaper is to be commended for its investigative reporting and allowing us to comment on its stories. Just wish the current approach had been undertaken years ago.

TKeegan73's picture
TKeegan73

LOL... This is exactly why I love to read the comments on posts, I'm still smirking. People need to grasp the concept that they are posting on a site owned and moderated by local media and it is THEIR choice on what comments are breaking the rules and guidelines of the comment section. Keep in mind if you slander a person who is affiliated with media, you're probably going to get your "comment"(personal attack) removed. Or if you say negative or derogatory remarks about a business and they run ads in this paper you are definitely going to get deleted but if the business is closed down your comment will probably be ignored. Personal attacks against each other on here for different political beliefs or just general disagreement is just uncalled for and very immature. If you want to say something and you think freedom of speech is going to protect your comment then you better read our Amendments better and start your own blog page where your ignorance can't be deleted.

OH-IO

Very well said Mr. Brown. Thanks for explaining freedom of speech to many on this site that don't understand. As a old relative of mine used to say, "Nobody owes you nothing." This includes the Sandusky Register too. Keep up the good work.

ContraryAnn

SR determines worthiness - and who should get blasted.
Funny.

Does John Cahill have enough signatures yet to file his candidacy?

Nemesis

Mr. Jackson, you're conflating the legal tenet of Americans' First Amendment rights with the ethical principle of freedom of speech. The first is about the government's legal obligation to respect a natural right. The second is about the ethical obligation of individuals and groups of good character to do so. Yes, we all know about the Register's property rights not to publish what they don't want to publish. The Register has every LEGAL right to censor the content of its paper and website.

However, the PRINCIPLE embodied in "I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" is not only about the government and the law. The importance of free speech does not spring from a vacuum - it is based on the value of a robust marketplace of ideas and the willingness to respond substantively to criticism rather than shout it down. One cannot be intellectually honest by saying one stands for the PRINCIPLE of free speech and then using heavy handed tactics to avoid hearing and responding to unfavorable ideas. The Register happens to have the biggest soapbox in town, and with that comes a certain nobless oblige to be viewpoint-blind in what comments are allowed. While the Register has the right not to present critical or opposing viewpoints, the willingness to do so is critical to its credibility. Only a bully who can't defend his views feels the need to shout down, or shut down, contrary views or critics.

It's interesting to note that Matt Westerhold often responds directly in the comments to those who are critical of the Register. Now, THAT is a principled approach to free speech - answering undesired speech with more speech. On the other hand, both you and Matt have, on a few occassions, deleted comments and offered explanations that didn't hold water. That's disappointing, because most of the other blogger/columnists don't delete comments, and, of all the writers at the Register, the two of you display the most talent and ability to defend your views. You have deleted comments far less critical than those which Sharon, Damon, Ruth, and Eda let stand and to which the latter three responded, and you're a better writer than the four of them combined.

It all comes down to whether your devotion to free speech is a meaningful support a principle, or merely a craven legalistic calculation of whose ox is being gored?

SamAdams

Re: "It all comes down to whether your devotion to free speech is a meaningful support a principle, or merely a craven legalistic calculation of whose ox is being gored?"

Not at all. You're confusing the responsibilities/authorities of news outlets with those of government. The Register is not legally or even ethically required to offer up their large soapbox to all comers. They're also not obligated to publish anything they don't want to publish.

The debates that show up on these blogs are, without question, helpful to The Register. Generating added interest or even controversy isn't ever a bad thing where publications are concerned! At the same time, you don't own their servers. You don't dictate their content. And you're not vested in their business. Whether their decisions are good ones or bad ones, it's up to THEM to make those decisions.

The GOVERNMENT (at least theoretically) can't force you to shut up. It can't prevent you from building your own soapbox, either. But it's sure not responsible to PROVIDE you with a soapbox, and The Register is that much less responsible no matter WHAT you want to say.

Nemesis

Sorry, Sam, but you're making the same conflation as Tom. There are three ways the Register can stand for free speech. The first is by grudgingly accepting that the First Amendment means they can't ask the government to silence their critics. That's acknowledgement of the legal tenet. The second is to not value it except when they can rely upon it to further their own ends. That's the aforementioned a craven legalistic calculation of whose ox is being gored.

The third is to believe that free expression is a good unto itself that we should all value. The belief that we all benefit from a robust marketplace of ideas where everyone responds substantively to differing views rather than shouting them down. This is what Voltaire was expressing when he said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." France never enjoyed anything like the First Amendment in his lifetime, and he didn't die on the barricades trying to change that, so clearly, he was speaking of a principle by which he would govern his personal conduct.

Thus, those who CLAIM to believe in open debate of issues, rather than pontifications from a bully pulpit. have an ethical obligation to practice what they preach, and not exploit power differentials to silence their opponents and critics/ Yes, they own the servers, etc. but for them to delete critical comments is akin to a kid who invites the whole neighborhood to play ball in his backyard then declares that his team gets an unlimited number of strikes at bat. Sure, it's his yard, and he's legally entitled to do so, but he's still a jackass, and there is no credible value to his subsequent boasts of having won the game. Yes, this is America, and I'll defend his legal right to be a jackass, but he's not entitled to be held in high regard by the neighborhood. More important, he can't expect much from them when he needs help - this is particularly applicable given the Register's recent cries on behalf of the illegally detained Blade reporters.

Just because you have a right doesn't make how you exercise it right. You don't have to allow someone say bad things about you in your own living room, but if you're half as intellectually honest and forthright as the Register portrays itself to be, you'll stand there and force them to expose their inability to prove what they say, rather than kick them in the head and toss them out the door. While the First Amendment applies only to the government, the principle that the best answer to unwanted speech is more speech in response applies to us all.

pntbutterandjelly

I, for one, would like to extend a hearty "Thank you" to the Sandusky Register for giving me the opportunity to post my thoughts, comments and convictions on a local level. It also serves as my small contribution to combat those who have the financial ability to now purchase mass-marketing political propaganda via the latest SCOTUS decision. That IS wrong and should have been denied. True "freedom of speech" is not having the ability to purchase more of it than others no matter who or what the source. We seriously need to simplify the political funding process. Not make it more contorted or imbalanced.

Thanks again SR.

Contango

Re: "True "freedom of speech" is not having the ability to purchase more of it than others no matter who or what the source."

Since you've concluded that it is "mass-marketing political propaganda," what difference should it make to you how much and in what fashion PACs spend their money?

The U.S. politicos have been attempting to remove money from politics for over 100 yrs. and they've yet to succeed.

Furgitaboutit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam...

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

- John Wanamaker

ContraryAnn

THURSDAY... and Mr. Jackson, Mr. Westerhold et al get another lesson in "Freedom of Speech" to wit:

The Prosecutor doesn't have to tell you ahead of time that he's taking a case to the Grand Jury just because you utilize "Freedom of the Press" to namecall, persecute, and attack him.

Of course the above-named personnel and publication - and many on here - already have determined the Patrol Officer's guilt.

ContraryAnn

Jury selection/Rockware/TeamRay. Did anyone read the N-M story about the process in drawing the Sandusky County juries for the next trimester? The process was very well explained.
I guess I just overlooked the story here?

Matt Westerhold

Thanks ContraryAnn. You're quickly becoming a frequent commenter. Unfortunately, you seem to be getting and sharing a limited amount of information that overlooks important details. Other information from you is based on your personal assumptions without the benefit of actually knowing much about the process. It might be that you're not getting those troubling details, or you're simply ignoring them as if not acknowledging something means it does not exist. The Register was not invited to the "How a grand jury gets picked" demonstration, but in reading the account from another newspaper to which you refer, the important and contrary details were left out. The Register is more interested in determining why that occurred, and the circumstances that caused it to occur, than it is in presenting information that ignores its occurrence. Hope that helps you have a broader understanding, but it does seem as though you might prefer to ignore the troubling details the same these issues were ignored during the demonstration on Tuesday. Let's all sing "Kumbaya."  

ContraryAnn

but in reading the account from another newspaper to which you refer, the important and contrary details were left out. The Register is more interested in determining why that occurred, and the circumstances that caused it to occur, than it is in presenting information that ignores its occurrence"
In the interest of enlightenment of myself and others, can you REPORT exactly what were those "important and contrary details"?
Son, I've been involved in the process since the day when numbered balls were pulled from a tumbler - much like a bingo game - longer than you've been reporting on it.

ContraryAnn

Most reputable media outlets need confirmation from two sources...

Spy's picture
Spy

A good decision is to also read stories from other media outlets as well. There is no such thing as a truly unbiased or objective story. It is impossible to write one.

ContraryAnn

Objection.
Stating facts is objective.
Offering quotes from as many sources as possible is objective...presenting both/all sides of the story.
It is difficult to write a truly unbiased story.... but through the decades we have seen such stories.

Spy's picture
Spy

But someone can leave out facts that they feel are not as important, either purposely or subconsciously. Never has a truly unbiased story ever been written.

In either case, to check how objective a story is, you always need to compare it to others.

bullydogs1971

"Freedom of speech has nothing to do with whether the Register, a private company, is obligated to publish anything."

this i agree with...

"I am talking about suppression! You are no better than a communist government that tries to suppress the masses. If one speaks their objections
against the SR you block them and remove their post ..."

this is agree with too....