When even a respected publication like Rolling Stone makes bombshell allegations of criminal activities without checking their facts because the subject matter has a special status in the editors' eyes, then journalism is headed down a very slippery, subjective slope, and the credibility of the press itself is at stake.
What explains the view that disclosing information about a person's medical history or financial status, regardless of motive, is destructive and should be punished by law, but that disclosing pictures of a person's naked body is trivial and should not be punished unless motivated by a desire to harm the victim?
How low will the Egyptian government go in silencing the voices of its citizens and its human rights activists? Last week, it went even lower than thought possible. In what amounted to a judicial masquerade, the Egyptian government suddenly decided to prosecute one of the world's most active and effective human rights defenders, Azza Soliman, for denouncing police brutality.
It seems clear that Texas cannot constitutionally forbid the display of the Confederate flag on a license plate because others might find it "offensive or disagreeable." But it is not so simple. Is the government discriminating among private speakers, or is it expressing only the messages it wishes to convey?
The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government but subsequently became applicable to state governments by way of the14th Amendment through a process known as incorporation. Since the University of Oklahoma is a public institution, wouldn't free speech apply to the expelled students?