"Can" and "Should"

Where media law and ethics collide

I started a new media law and ethics class this week and, once again, the headlines didn’t let me down.

For the teachers in the room, I never let the first day of class just be “syllabus day,” which I think is a waste of a teaching opportunity. Instead, I look for something happening in the news I can connect with the principles we will be studying.

One time, media law class started on January 8, 2021.

We had some stuff to talk about.

In 2026, that stuff revolved around the president, again, for better and worse. For anyone concerned about media literacy, public decency and coarsening standards, I think the lessons are worth more talk.

You might have heard, the President of the United States was subjected to some awful comments while touring an automobile factory in Michigan.

CAN the auto worker say that?

Well, “can” is a legal question and under the First Amendment, the answer is usually “yes,” at least in terms of whether the government has the right to shut down that kind of free speech.

SHOULD the auto worker say that?

“Should?” is an ethical matter - a matter of ought. In my opinion, the answer is “no.” No matter what we think about who holds the office at any given point in time, I believe people in the public and media should respect the office.

There are plenty of counter-examples on social media, but I will stick with my view in the interest of citizenship, decorum and decency.

The distinction between can (legal) and should (ethical) is important to how we function in a free society with protected speech and media. In one sense, we are all media now, even if we aren’t professionals.

Now, there are other layers to this that people often miss because they don’t have to study the First Amendment as deeply as my students.

Can that autoworker be punished for speaking his mind?

Yes, of course. The First Amendment bans government from abridging free speech. It says nothing about your employer, or your peers, or the public at large who might not cheer you on.

Words have consequences and freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

And speaking of consequences…the president can also respond.

And did.

Unfortunately.

We can argue all day about whether the president should have responded as he did, but it’s clear under the Constitution, he can.

The more important legal question is whether the president has a case for defamation. He seems to think so, but this president sues early and often, usually without winning but sometimes getting settlements and agreements that make life difficult for the defendants.

The Times vs. Sullivan case is probably the most single most important First Amendment ruling since the Bill of Rights and it sets a much higher “actual malice” standard for libel of public officials and figures.

We won’t get into the weeds of that here, but just know that Times v. Sullivan makes it extremely difficult for any official to win a libel suit, even when the “speech” is defamatory. Until the Supreme Court hears a new case testing Times v. Sullivan, that interpretation remains the law of the land.

Why talk about this at TURN IT OFF?

Remember, this site is not just about backing down your media time, but also THINKING MORE about the media we consume and APPLYING TRUTH from God’s word to our media consumption.

I often tell my classes, “the law can only take us so far. And then you must ask, what does God require?”

Too often, people blur legality with morality.

“Well…I didn’t do anything illegal?”

But, was it wrong?

I realize there are shadings between clear moral law and ethics and we try to unpack that in the classroom too. As a believer, I must always consider my words, my actions, and my behavior answerable to a Holy God - who is above all laws, above all leaders, above all elections and certainly above all media.

Where He speaks, I must listen. Where He commands, I must obey. And where there is uncertainty, I must be guided.

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. ¹⁴ He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. ¹⁵ All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”- John 16:13-15

High bar? For sure.

Clear cut? Sometimes, no.

In a cacophony of people recklessly acting out their free speech “rights” with seeming impunity, I must hear a different voice.

I can say much…I probably should say less.

I will do better...not because the law makes me, but my Lord calls.