Freedom Study: If It's Legalized, It's Publicized

For a journalist, it seems that the highest ethic is to report the truth which is only accessible through freedom of expression. John Stuart Mill believes that the only exception to freedom of expression is when an opinion may incite harm to another. One’s freedom of speech must be taken away when it is spoken with the intention of hurting another “without justifiable cause”. I agree with Mill and would take that one step further by asserting that freedom of speech that is detrimental to the reader’s judgment of the truth must either be censored or published with caution.

On March 3, 2010, Voice of America published an article entitled, “Gay Marriage Law Takes Effect in Washington”. Along with reporting the 5 W’s of the newly enacted law, the journalist chose to gather the opinions of two newlywed homosexual couples, along with a representative of the National Clergy Council—whose opinion the journalist included at the end of the article. There seemed to be an unbalanced representation of opinions in regard to the new law. Four out of five of the persons quoted were supporters of homosexual marriage. The opinions of Darlene Garner and Candy Holmes—newlyweds under the new marriage law—were given the most representation in the article with three quotes. The couple met 14 years ago in church and are currently Christian ministers. In the article, Holmes was quoted saying, "We are recognizing that God is about love and marriage is about love and that's our focus.” The majority of the article’s views are of the subjective viewpoint of those who support the new law. I suppose if it’s legalized, it's publicized.

Christians who embrace homosexuality like Garner and Holmes are entitled to their own opinion. Those opinions, however, misrepresent the truth claims about the Christian God in Scripture (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Not only do the expression of their opinions do harm to the accurate portrayal of the Christian faith but to other Christians. When Christian leaders hold differing views on issues of sexual immorality—in this case, homosexuality—it can confuse the public and Christian believers, particularly those struggling to overcome the sin of homosexuality. From Garner and Holmes’ point of view, homosexuality is not a sin and is a practice to be embraced and even celebrated. They say that God and marriage are about love, but in 1 Cor. 13, Paul says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” Though their words may be true to some extent, their reasoning does not justify their practice of marrying someone of the same sex as a God-glorifying act.

Judith Andre is right in indicating that the ethical objections to certain opinions will be driven by the beliefs and values of the publication. Journalists, however, have the responsibility to report and portray people accurately. Their first loyalty is to the truth, not to their own value system. I would argue that any opinion that misconstrues the truth shouldn’t be reported, especially without appropriate context.