Can/should media be held to the same "Hate speech" standards as citizens ?

The state and media spout stuff all the time that is meant to be divisive and inflammatory. It is that way by design as they know that if the people ever united it would be game over for them.

The whole hate speech issue is just an extension of the failed experiment called globalization and multiculturalism. As people wake up to it's failings and demand a stop to it, so they need to stamp out dissent amongst the people. Thus, a new concept is created called "hate speech".
Voicing opinions on issues such as immigration (for instance) then become hate speech and racism and after a time it becomes ingrained to the point where the sheeple are conditioned enough to shrink from logical criticism as they fear being labeled a racist, a Nazi, a fascist etc!

Social experimentation and conditioning on a global scale, well in the western sphere anyway, and leading the way in all this is the corporate media where distortions, out of context remarks and downright fabrications and lies are passed off as the truth. The voice of reason and counter arguments to their drivel is thus drowned out by the calls of the conditioned masses for it to stop. Hell, there are even a lot of people who oppose all this but have been conditioned with the herd mentality and are afraid to speak out and be labeled and tagged and lose their place in the collective.
The government and media rely on this conditioning to keep their power and are immune from the same laws that govern the rest of us, as is the case with just about all the laws that we must follow.

Wow good thread some people that finally see things the way I have for a while. Divide and conquer! Pretty much the most fundamental rule of psychological warfare since as long as mankind can remember. That along with corrupting history so people cannot possibly put together what has happened, makes an awfully powerful move (check mate?) to use chess as an analogy.

So what do we do about it? Since speaking out about this only seems to end up in public ridicule or on extreme cases where there is enough public attention assassination whether of character or death... History repeats until we can out manoeuvre around the same cycle of oppression... Just my opinion.

States don't own the media, states don't seem to own the states, corporations could (speculative opinion) own everything if you think about it. Who owns the corporations? Well a lot of people do, so we could argue that the people own everything... But in reality there is obviously a few who own a lot more than the rest of us and by owning a lot they essentially control and own it all and if you were in the position were you had this much power and control, would you like to see it taken from you? ... No not by peasants!. Except, they don't our minds, for now. They do make it hard for us to use them though and voice our opinions that is for sure.

a reply to: Britguy

So what your saying is that if we are considerate of another person's feelings, if we don't condone maltreatment of a group, if we care about how we are perceived we're just part of a herd? Lessons our parents taught us or things we learned in school was just so we could be corraled to be just like everyone else? Because some people could use that just to behave badly and say hey I'm not part of the herd.
We don't have laws against free speech but we have standards we live by to consider ourselves civilized and well, nice. You have free will. You can choose to be a sick(and that word should start with a d not an s) if you want to but you won't have many friends. Your choice.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Ummm...no. The media is based on speech...of all kinds. Otherwise this would be North Korea.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: 8675309jenny

I work as an independent stringer for news organizations and I would like to comment but could you provide some
examples please.

I already asked that. Apparently it will take some time to compile. We can get up a game of cards in the meantime if you like. I have some vanilla rum we can drink while we wait too.

I'm sorry for having to go to work today....

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Ummm...no. The media is based on speech...of all kinds. Otherwise this would be North Korea.

Jesus, why do some people always have to jump to some non-sensical extreme ??

I'm not talking about curbing free speech. I am suggesting that media be held aco#able IF and WHEN they report on things in a clearly biased manner and it results in death or violence!! EXACTLY the same standard we as citizens are held to concerning our right to incite violence & murder!

originally posted by: Britguy
What is the actual definition of "hate Speech" and who ultimately decides on what is considered to fit the definition?

It's another of those ridiculous fabrications, meant to lull us all into this increasingly politically correct trance state, where we are afraid to speak our minds and criticize anything for fear of being labeled this or that and thus standing out from the herd.
The way things are right now, if we are even overheard saying something that someone within earshot thinks is offensive to them, we can be arrested and charged, such is the silliness of these crazy laws.

Whatever happened to thick skins, changing the channel, walking away or ignoring things and people we didn't agree with?
Sure, it's great for the lawyers as it has created a whole new avenue of prosecutions for them to exploit, but what is it ultimately doing to society? I'm sorry, but I refuse to become a good little drone and will always speak my mind and it that offends some people, then so be it, get over it and move on.

We either have free speech or we don't, it's as simple as that. Having laws that prosecute people for saying something that some may find unsavoury is the complete opposite and can also be used to stifle free speech. One of the primary examples of this is the "anti-semite" tag, the use of which is meant to stifle any and all debate and stigmatize the offender in the eyes of the programmed drones.

I now where you're coming from, and I agree mostly. If you knew me, you'd know I am one of the most un-PC people I know. I have friends of all races and we make racist jokes with each other. My wife and I make sexist insults at each other all the time and we enjoy a good laugh. I can be very un-PC in public and don't really care if it bothers people.


I've spent significant time in the UK, and the media is just so much less sensationalist. Over here the media seem to run with any inflammatory story as quick as possible without doing due diligence in verifying the facts.


A good example would be the Fox news affiliate in Maryland reporting the "SO KILL A COP" chanting crowd. Now personally I don't think they did it on purpose. I heard it the same, but they probably should have researched the story a little better before running with it. They ran with it because they knew it was juicy and would make 'good news' aka it get's people's attention and sells ad spots. Obviously the BBC doesn't have the issue of generating ad revenue. (for those who aren't aware, the BBC has zero comercials, and is paid for by citizens paying a 'TV license' ).

The guy who murdered two NYPD officers was from that very same broadcast area in Maryland, so if you could prove that WBFF deliberately presented the protest as chanting "KILL A COP", then perhaps you would have a case for a civil fine against them for "irresponsible incitement to violence" or some charge like that.

I'm starting to think these measures are needed to actually keep these inflammatory news idiots in check.

Reporting factual news? FINE.

Deliberately twisting the news to incite people to violence? NOT OK.

The media get to decide whats acceptable and the audience goes along with it one way or another, they get to experiment with everything from morals to life and death issues changing society at will, at the same time they can have only those that have been indoctrinated on to give there views leaving you thinking,why am i so out of step.....the modern media monopolies are the enemy of practically every country on earth, a perfect way of invasion with out the use of an army, every country has a 5th column of people who are weak minded enough to force the change the enemy envisions.....no offence to the house wives of the world.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

I applaud the sentiment of this thread but must completely and utterly disagree with the proposal where freedom of the press is concerned.

Media, must often, represent both and often multiple perspectives in controversial events. One side will convey ideas and ideals that another side to the debate may consider abhorrent. Both or all sides, however, must be thoroughly explored, poked and prodded to get to the roots of reason. Reason is not always good, bad, civil or even tolerable for some. But you, all of us, have a right to demand the answer to the why.

If a reporter shares a story that makes you so angry you lash out at a keyboard, compels demands for reform, or even causes you to bang your fist...the truth...often ugly, sometimes beautiful, even shocking or enraging cannot be hidden for fear of offense.

Truth and all its ramifications is freedom of speech. We must defend the things we would rather not hear as the only means to ensure some or one cannot deny knowledge as a means of false protection and ultimately control.

Anger and outrage will happen. Some stories, if truth be told, and it must, are worthy of outrage. And some, thankfully, remind us to celebrate. As a people, all people, it is up to us to become the stories or heroes and live the stories we want the world to know of our time here.

While I understand sincerely the sentiment here, I believe freedom is worth...even sometimes...the fight we must wage to preserve it.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Britguy

So what your saying is that if we are considerate of another person's feelings, if we don't condone maltreatment of a group, if we care about how we are perceived we're just part of a herd? Lessons our parents taught us or things we learned in school was just so we could be corraled to be just like everyone else? Because some people could use that just to behave badly and say hey I'm not part of the herd.

In essence, yes! State schools are conditioning centres, always have been. I am often told I am one of the more "diplomatic" folks at work. I'm massively anti war, anti violence and wish no harm on others. However, I will also call things how I see them and if people are upset or offended by that then tough! Simply staying quiet and NOT speaking out against issues IS a result of the conditioned herd mentality.

We don't have laws against free speech but we have standards we live by to consider ourselves civilized and well, nice. You have free will. You can choose to be a sick(and that word should start with a d not an s) if you want to but you won't have many friends. Your choice.

That is the plan and result of conditioning though. isn't it? Conditioned to NOT speak out and be seen by the rest of the herd as somehow dissenting against the norm? I really don't care how others perceive me and, as I said, I know many who may agree with me, but their conditioning and desire to be "accepted" prevents them from vocalizing their true feelings or viewpoints. If I think something is wrong, I'll damn well stick my neck out and say so, no matter who it may offend. It doesn't mean I go out of my way to be deliberately offensive towards others, but sometimes taking the cowards way out and staying silent just doesn't help the matter at hand.

The government and media, as I have stated previously, rely on this conditioning and response and will manipulate issues to cause division to cover their own failings and agendas. Best to have the sheep focused elsewhere rather than on them.
It also sets a dangerous precedent as to what is accepted as Hate Speech, where the rules are set buy those very same people who use it to stifle dissent, free speech and, importantly, breaking through government sponsored and disseminated lies.

Shouldn't take everything so seriously. That was supposed to be funny.
In fact I really don't expect any examples to be available but really no biggy.
Peace



A reply to: 8675309jenny

a reply to: 8675309jenny

It's the word incite that is the problem here. It makes media responsible for the behavior instead of the actual perpetrator. No matter what the news reports the actions of the listeners are their own responsibility not the media's. Free speech isn't in question but accountability is.
Freedom of assembly is our right too but that doesn't cover an angry violent mob mentality.
Assault and destruction of property is still a crime.

But that's not what you were saying. Your comment was about political correctness. What used to be called decent civilized behavior
BTW I don't know about in the UK but here we can't be arrested for saying something offensive that someone happens to over hear. Even if what the person overheard was violent and threatening. If someone said right to your face I'm going to get a bat and bash your head in they still can't be arrested. They would have to actually do it to get arrested.
Is it different where you live?
. a reply to: Britguy

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Sadly, decent and civilised behaviour seems to be a thing of the past, thanks to the MTV generation, Hollywood and the cult of "celebrity".

Strangely, the whole "Hate Speech" thing seemed to appear around the same time a new phenomenon appeared, that of labeling people "Haters". I don't know where that started (seems to have originally been a US thing) which spread on social media, but made it's way over here as well. All of a sudden, expressing a dislike of something or someone and you were tagged a "Hater", like it was automatically some really bad stuff and you were, by inference, a bad person. Another "group think" experiment perhaps?

Here in the UK, a threat of violence towards another will get you arrested, even if no charges are brought as it's always a difficult one to prove. I think the arrest is in the hope the guilty party may say something to incriminate themselves while being questioned.

So have you changed your opinions after today?

What happens when you are confronted with a group that is not above perpetrating violence if you "offend" them with what you report claiming it was "hate" speech to report as you did whether what you reported was the simple truth or not?

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: 8675309jenny

I agree, but who will enforce this? Also, it is not a crime to lie or manufacturer information and spread it via mass media.

Do you remember the Fox “Investigators” four-part series about Monsanto Corporation and bovine growth hormone (BGH)?

I learned about it on ATS - there is surely a few threads in the ATS archive about it.



"Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie"

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series.

But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts.

Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story.

When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired

The investigative journalists Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, sued - Jane was found to be deserving of protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement.



Fox appealed the decision ..... and won.

In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.”

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media.

They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.

Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

ATS Thread from 2009 by TrueAmerican on the topic:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: DancedWithWolves
If a reporter shares a story that makes you so angry you lash out at a keyboard, compels demands for reform, or even causes you to bang your fist...the truth...often ugly, sometimes beautiful, even shocking or enraging cannot be hidden for fear of offense.

Stories that might make people angry aren't the issue. People should be held accoutable for their own actions. I am against the news media being able to deliberately lie and motivate people to violence.

People like Charles Manson are serving life sentences for abusing freedom of speech (he never physically had a hand in the murders, he simply convinced others to murder.) If we can't hold corporations accountable for for inciting violence, then how can we ever charge a leader with war crimes?

originally posted by: ketsuko
So have you changed your opinions after today?

What happens when you are confronted with a group that is not above perpetrating violence if you "offend" them with what you report claiming it was "hate" speech to report as you did whether what you reported was the simple truth or not?

No, and honestly I'm a bit disappointed that you would refer to last night's horrible events in such a way.

What happened yesterday was not a response to any news or media organization inciting violence, it was a fundamental intolerance of any criticism and a fanatical adherence to a violent religion.

I am absolutely FOR freedom of the press. What I am against is any news agency deliberately misrepresenting a story in such a manner that get's people attacked or killed.

originally posted by: UmbraSumus

In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.”

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media.

They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.

Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

This is precisely the sort of thing I am referring to when I mention news media deliberately twisting facts. If it results in violence or murder, they should absolutely be held accountable for criminal negligence at a minimum!!




.

a reply to: Britguy
I don't see it as a thing of the past. My children, three young men, not kids are all decent people. Their friends are also decent people. I don't see that people in general are less civilized. I do see rudeness in anonymous situations where people cant be held responsible like internet forums.
As for haters it's a buzz word and will pass. There have always been people who are bitter, people who are prejudiced against one group or another and people who are just plain nasty. And there have always been people more than willing to judge someone unworthy because of their thinking or behavior. Unfortunatly there are also people who will take that judgement to heart and feel incompetent or inferior. Just as the judgemental intend. Maybe it makes them feel superior when they can make another feel inferior. ???????
It's all human nature and an explosion in population results in an explosion of these incidents but I don't think the ratios have changes just the number of people with their quirks and issues.
Here in the states no one can get arrested for making threats or talking crap. But it can get authorities watching you to see if you make a move you can be arrested for.

I'm sorry but I just don't see this lying you talk about. Sometimes facts change during discovery periods in a story. But lies??? What examples do you have of news agencies telling lies?
Here's how that would work.
The network depends on advertising to keep its doors open so viewership of its programs are very very important. If people discovered that a particular news outlet was telling lies they would switch channels and watch news they trusted for accuracy.
Dropping numbers of viewers would make the network change the programing so that they could regain those lost viewers because lost viewers equals lost revenue in advertising dollars.
As for motivating violence again their job is to report the news. It's not their responsibility what a particular viewer does with it. Like riot.

Now as to presenting opinions about the news yes there is a certain spin presented by particular agencies. Everyone knows that FOX is conservative and will present their stories to their equally conservative viewers in that vein. There is a big difference between spinning and deliberate lies and like I said if an agency is caught lying their viewership will drop causing advertisers to go elsewhere.

reply to: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
I'm sorry but I just don't see this lying you talk about. Sometimes facts change during discovery periods in a story. But lies??? What examples do you have of news agencies telling lies?
Here's how that would work.
The network depends on advertising to keep its doors open so viewership of its programs are very very important. If people discovered that a particular news outlet was telling lies they would switch channels and watch news they trusted for accuracy.

It is interesting that you mention advertisers -

What happens when a network lies to protection one of it advertisers ?

Monsanto Corporation and bovine growth hormone (BGH)?