Opinion

MURFREESBORO, Tenn.  (WMOT)  --  It’s not often Murfreesboro and Nashville get to be in the middle of a national controversy, but that’s exactly what’s happening with the “occupy” movement. Both cities are facing a conflict between the protesters’ First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, versus the two cities’ very real concerns about safety, security and sanitation.

Under current law, everyone has the right to demonstrate, picket, march and protest. At the same time, communities can impose what are called “reasonable time, place and manner” restraints. Plus, any restrictions that are imposed have to be the minimal necessary in order to both allow free speech and protect the public from unreasonable inconvenience.

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. (WMOT) --  For as long as I can remember I’ve had an idea for a science fiction story about journalists. In the story we live in a world where journalists can do anything they want in pursuit of a story: lie, cheat steal, even murder. Of course, all of their stories are truthful, complete and accurate, so I guess there is some kind of trade-off.

Now, I find my fantasy story may not be as far-fetched as I had perhaps imagined.

A little more than a year ago News Corp was discovered to have hacked into telephone and e-mail accounts in pursuit of stories. The revelations led to the collapse and closure of the organization’s premier newspaper, News of the World.

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. (WMOT) --  There’s an old, old saying that you can run but you can’t hide. And a corollary for the Internet age is that you shouldn’t post anything anywhere that you wouldn’t want you grandmother to see.

So here’s the issue: Facebook is about to make it a whole lot easier for anyone in the world, and that includes your grandmother and potential employer, to find those old photographs of you falling down drunk. One side of the argument says Facebook should be more respectful of our privacy. The other side says you posted the pictures, you deal with the consequences.

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. --  Remember when Sergeant Joe Friday used to say “Just the facts”?  And remember when the heart of journalism was gathering facts and then writing a story based on those facts?  But what is supposed to happen if the reporters working on a story know the facts they are being given are wrong?  Should they challenge the source?

    That was the question a New York Times editor posed recently, asking if reporters should openly challenge public officials’ misleading claims.  The public seems split on the answer, but the quick answer is:  no.

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. --  Almost everyone agrees that broadcasters should be prohibited from broadcasting “indecent” material.  And Federal Communications Commission rules, in fact, ban such broadcasts.  So let me ask you this:  What, exactly, is “indecent” material?

    This is the issue argued last week before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case that challenges how the government regulates indecent broadcasts.  Note that the issue is not if the government can regulate such material rather, the question deals with how the rules are enforced.

    So, to start, I’d really like to know what “indecent” material is.  Not obscene or pornographic material; those materials already have pretty explicit definitions.  But “indecent”?

MURFREESBORO, Tenn.  --  At the moment former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich appears to be leading other republican presidential contenders in the polls. I say “for the moment,” because by the time I finish writing these comments someone else may very well be the front runner.

A couple of my friends have noticed, with some chagrin, that everyone, including the media, seems to delight in attacking the front runners. The Japanese have a phrase for this sort of behavior: the nail that sticks up is the one that gets hammered down.