I think it violates the 1st amendment (contains the right to free speech)
USLegal said:
Invasion of privacy is the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, [... a] non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/
Privacy is protected by tort law, precedents, and depending upon your interpretation the Constitution. including this one by the
US Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) in the case of Dietemann v. Time Inc. (1971) said:
The defendant claims that the First Amendment immunizes it from liability for invading plaintiff's den with a hidden camera and its concealed electronic instruments because its employees were gathering news and its instrumentalities "are indispensable tools of investigative reporting." We agree that newsgathering is an integral part of news dissemination. We strongly disagree, however, that the hidden mechanical contrivances are "indispensable tools" of newsgathering. Investigative reporting is an ancient art; its successful practice long antecedes the invention of miniature cameras and electronic devices.
The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office. It does not become such a license simply because the person subjected to the intrusion is reasonably suspected of committing a crime.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/dietemann.html
How can we give the media more power than our own Government? I assume you have read the 4th Amendment.
The reason I mention this? Because the Media should be censored, but only in aspects that may harm others in any way. Rights that should be protected over the Right to Free Speech are:
Privacy - As I've gone on about above, this is the one thing that remains nowadays that shouldn't. Public figures obviously know that they place themselves in the public eye through their career (although they really shouldn't). Others through, including the families of public figures (Nobody has the right to follow Rudy Giuliani's ex-wives or children around. They aren't involving themselves in his public right and don't surrender their right to privacy because of someone related to them), the families of people who are appropriatly talked about in the news (It was sickening to me that the day of the Virginia Tech shooting that I heard almost as much if not more info about the shooter/victims families than I did about the incident. It took me two seconds on Wikipedia to get this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Family_efforts_to_help_Cho that contains 3 pages about his youth/family and 5 pages of refrences chuck full of it as well. None of them asked to have their lives looked through with a fine tooth comb, the media needs to back off or be forced to), and films about criminals (like "To Catch a Predator". I'm all for shows like cops that has the faces blurred out, but not only is NBC making money doing a job made for the police, but regardless of what they've done plastering their face everywhere is crossing the line).
Defemation/Slander/All That Good Stuff - If you don't know what this means, then stop reading this and head into the Community General forum. Your lack of thought, grammar skills, and vocabulary will fit in better there. Shows like "To Catch a Predator" also falls under this category to a degree, but it also includes limits on the reputation of public figures (We know Lindsay Lohan is a drunk, but constantly posting the ugliest photos of her you can find everywhere is crossing the line), their family (Wonderful. Beyonce just got a divorce. Now that you've written her ex-husbands name everywhere, his reputation is going to be... a. Worse off b. The same c. Better off -- I think it's a.), and articles that write about things that can harm someones reputation to an extent that is excessive (That includes racism, etc), especially if it uses false information to do so.
and last but not least (Thank you Wikipedia for providing the term & definition I wanted...)
Public Interest - "Revelation of military secrets and other sensitive government information may be contrary to the public interest, even if it is true." This doesn't include opinions, publications, or quoting already announced information about any part of our Government. Essentially, if you manage to get some FBI files, you shouldn't be allowed to publish them. Yes, we should protect them better, but that wouldn't keep the people who may be harmed as a result of publishing them from being in harms way.
In the end, the media can talk about whomever or whatever they want as long as they didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and aren't harmed (depends on the situation) as a result.
EDITS:
Apart from when Coca Cola did it in Austrailia. I mean there profit only went fucking sky high. Nothing major.
Please provide a link to where this information came from. If you weren't someone that found it super cool to post about his "x-tr3ME sex lif3" in the Underage Sex threads (Yes, plural - the one you made and the one you subsequently bumped) in similar one sentence posts I would probably take your word for it. Not trying to flame you (So nobody needs to do a nifty spin-off of my words) but you come off as unintelligent when your posts are a short combination of pointlessness, bad grammar, and strange braggings to the point that I don't consider what tyou post to be reliable. You don't have to post at nearly my length (Shredders are short and sweet, but effective and not stupid - not trying to kiss ass, but it does take me all this to argue against his points, which says something) but if you have a coherent message/don't sound like a fool I usually assume the person didn't pull their information out of their ass.
Most swear words should be censored on kids channels, but adults they should be able to see and hear what they want. This violates our Bill of Rights (Freedom of Speech) and Freedom of Expression. The media should be able to put up anything on tv. The people want to know what happens!
Expression is protected in the Bill of Rights too (the Bill of Rights isn't just the right to free speech like your post infers), but regardless of that when does someone become an "adult" and how do we make sure the kids don't get into the adult items? Oopsie your 8-year-old accidentally ordered "Human Remains Being Chopped Up Part III". That'll be a great influence on their future. The status quo in the US is pretty good as is in my opinion (and from the sound of things yours too).
This is the lamest thing I ever heard, of course we should have freedom expression, people can choose what to watch anyways, and subliminal message hardly work.
Thanks for that well written topic advancing post.
The difference between that and subliminal advertising is that subliminal advertising can only be spotted through a very careful search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message
Coke used to run a 3 second ad and just show a can of Coca-Cola. I heard somewhere (can't confirm it) that they were forced to (by government or networks banding together) to stop airing the ad, but people (including myself) at the very least thought about drinking one, and some folks I'm sure picked up a 12 pack at the grocery store when they walked down that eisle.
), the media cooperating with the government to twist the facts, etc.
