ABSTRACT

U.S. journalists must walk a fine line when reporting on hate speech. Journalists have a vested interest in standing up for the First Amendment, which gives them the freedom to do their work. However, the legal protection that people who spew hateful rhetoric enjoy vastly outweighs any protections upon which the victims can rely. As such, dealing with hate speech in the United States is an inherently ethical issue. Applying the ethics of care to their reporting would allow journalists a clear framework with which to counter hate speech. This study examines if and how journalists used the ethics of care framework when covering the Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court case through analysis of articles published in U.S. newspapers. Using these articles as a representative sample for the national coverage of the case, the study finds that journalists failed to consider the human impact of their reporting.

摘要

美国记者在报道仇恨言论时必须谨慎行事。支持第一修正案的记者拥有既得利益，这使他们可以自由地开展工作。然而，那些发表仇恨言论的人所享有的法律保护远远超过了受害者可以依赖的任何保护。因此，在美国处理仇恨言论本身就是一个道德问题。将关怀伦理应用于他们的报道将使记者有一个清晰的框架来对抗仇恨言论。本研究探讨记者在报道斯奈德诉菲尔普斯案时是否以及如何使用护理伦理框架通过分析美国报纸上发表的文章得出的最高法院案件。使用这些文章作为全国报道的代表性样本，该研究发现记者未能考虑其报道对人类的影响。