Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Philly Mayor Wants Mag Punished over Race Relations Story
Source: American Renaissance
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2013
Author: Todd Starnes
Post Date: 2013-03-21 11:20:26 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 3331
Comments: 46

The Philadelphia Human Relations Commission has launched an investigation at the request of the mayor after a well-known magazine published an essay that explored perspectives of white citizens on the issue of race relations.

Mayor Michael Nutter called on the commission to consider rebuking both Philadelphia Magazine and writer Bob Huber noting that “the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right.”

Nutter’s fury was directed at a cover story titled, “Being White in Philly.” The story included conversations with mostly anonymous residents who detailed race relations in the City of Brotherly Love.

And the mayor also had some choice words for the anonymous individuals who were interviewed–some of whom claimed to have been victims of crimes perpetrated by blacks. He said they were “too cowardly” to provide their names.

Tom McGrath, the magazine’s editor, told Fox News he is very concerned that the government is investigating his publication.

“I find it chilling that he now wants to use the government to censor a news outlet,” he said. “As a journalist – as someone who thinks free speech is really important–I find that really, really troubling.”

McGrath said he stands by the story and the author–and acknowledged it set off a firestorm.

McGrath said the mayor “seriously overreacted to the story” and “mischaracterized the piece and what it’s trying to do.”

“White people do not always feel comfortable talking about race,” he said. “There are some white folks who don’t feel their views on certain issues are welcome in the conversation.”

And critics believe–ironically–that the mayor’s reaction to the story validates that point.

Nutter wants the commission to consider whether the magazine’s essay was the “reckless equivalent of shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

“Only by debunking myth with fact, and by holding accountable those who seek to confuse the two, can we insure that the prejudices reflected in the essay are accorded the weight they deserve: none at all,” the mayor wrote.

McGrath did say he welcomed the mayor’s call for a city-wide discussion about race – but noted the announcement was rich with irony.

“I find it pretty bizarre,” he said. “At the same time he wants us rebuked, he’s saying we need to have a conversation about race in Philadelphia – which was our point in the first place.”

“His point seems to be that he’s allowed to talk about some of this stuff but that other people aren’t,” McGrath added.

[Editor's Note: Mayor Nutter's full letter can be found here. Below is the most troubling portion.

While I fully recognize that constitutional protections afforded the press are intended to protect the media from censorship by the government, the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right, and notwithstanding the First Amendment, a publisher has a duty to the public to exercise its role in a responsible way. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether the “speech” employed in this essay is not the reckless equivalent of “shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater,” its prejudiced, fact-challenged generalizations an incitement to extreme reaction.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

#1. To: purplerose (#0)

Please explain to me some more about your misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-21   11:21:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Turtle (#1)

And the mayor also had some choice words for the anonymous individuals who were interviewed–some of whom claimed to have been victims of crimes perpetrated by blacks. He said they were “too cowardly” to provide their names.

Oh I have absolutely NO misunderstanding of the First Amendment. And from the article I have quoted in part, the First Amendment does not protect speech that foments civil unrest. As far as I am concerned that anonymous individual named "Anna" may as well be an agent for the KGB and also working with our CIA to foment civil unrest.

You are aware (at least you should be) that we have Russian soldiers trained on American soil by our own CIA?

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-21   13:46:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: purplerose (#3)

Oh I have absolutely NO misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

You have shown you have no understanding of it at all. If some 85 IQ niggers are offended by the article and riot, then the article is hate speech and must be censored.

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-21   13:59:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Turtle (#6) (Edited)

If some 85 IQ niggers are offended by the article and riot then the article is hate speech and must be censored.

Which is why police departments have Hate Speech notices posted on their walls. Forewarned is forearmed. And should such speech result in riots, and the culprit ("Anna" from Moscow) responsible for making the comment is not dealt with then a class action lawsuit may be brought forward with several issues presented before the SCOTUS justices. Several issues that I would love to present in my brief would be the following:

1. Does hate speech have provided protections under the First Amendment?

2. When does hate speech fall within the category of the Fighting Words Doctrine?

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-21   14:10:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: purplerose (#7)

"Fighting words" falls under assault, not the First Amendment.

You do know that there is a difference between assault and battery, don't you?

Apparently you still never understand the First Amendment.

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-21   14:18:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Turtle (#8)

"Fighting words" falls under assault, not the First Amendment.

If such words foment civil unrest, the constitution can also be suspended. Thanks to some anonymous "Anna" from Moscow paid by the CIA.

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-21   14:35:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 10.

#11. To: purplerose (#10)

The disquiet of offended fatass professional scribblers does not constitute "civil unrest."

randge  posted on  2013-03-21 15:13:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: purplerose, All (#10)

If such words foment civil unrest, the constitution can also be suspended.

No, the Constitution can't be suspended for any reason. Congress can suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus but only when "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." [Reference: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9]

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-21 21:12:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: purplerose (#10)

If such words foment civil unrest, the constitution can also be suspended. Thanks to some anonymous "Anna" from Moscow paid by the CIA.

Wow. You think suspending the Constitution is actually Constitutional because TPTB have declared they can do it?

I am truly amazed that some people are so naive in their trust of the Government.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2013-03-26 22:20:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest