2 ms·

I read your comment very very carefully to see if we disagree about anything. You're saying the same thing as me, but I think others in this thread are misinte

I read your comment very very carefully to see if we disagree about anything. You're saying the same thing as me, but I think others in this thread are misinterpreting. So, here is what you and I agree on, I think: we both think that Democracy Now is pushing an extremely strong agenda and is not objective journalism. Where you add "but not in a legal sense" -- we also agree. But the person I quoted was the prosecutor!! He can't say, you know, this woman just strikes me as being politically different, and I'd like to lock her up for it. That's not okay! Since he's the prosecutor, he can't just mix his political opinions willy-nilly in with throwing someone in prison for their writings. That's Stalinism. So while reading carefully, you and I on a personal level actually agree politically, where you lightly add "though not legally" this is actually a really really heavy distinction and you shouldn't be adding it lightly. You should be making a BIG deal about it. People can publish whatever even wrong or even biased crap they want with very few exceptions, and this is absolutely, 100% not one of these exceptions. You don't need a license to be a journalist. The license to write reports is based on "has America been overthrown and there's a Stalinist dictatorship", and if you Google that the answer is nope, hasn't happeened. She might as well be a licensed journalist, and isn't held to any standards because she can write whatever she wants. It's called America. if she committed a crime (which she didn't) it's not practicing journalism without a license or practicing biased journalism - which aren't crimes. That's the point. ------------ EDIT for your reply: this clarifies (thanks) but I don't see why you feel "journalism" is a legally protected status. (I don't know much about this.) What protections do journalists have that I don't if I write wherever I want? What obligations do they have that they can be criminally prosecuted for? (albeit in 'egregious' cases). you seem to imply both.

kbenson 10y ago
> we both think that Democracy Now is pushing an extremely strong agenda and is not objective journalism. Well, I don't specifically think that, as I have far too little information to make that judgement. I have very little exposure to Democracy Now (like a couple minutes of one episode, then the occassional snippet repeated elsewhere over the years) . What little exposure I have had had a feel of being a bit less objective than it could be, but I specifically was not trying to make my point dependent on that, as I think it's important and should stand on its own. It should make sense without Amy Goodman or Democracy Now taken into consideration at all. Journalism needs protection, some people profess to be journalists but aren't by any stretch, it's a slippery slope to go after them since we don't have an objective way to qualify journalism, nor a legal framework that I know of to make it workable without trampling rights. > where you lightly add "though not legally" .. I don't think that was lightly added. That was the point of the comment. Journalists are protected because they provide a vital service, and while it can be confusing and subjective as to whether someone thinks some piece of writing qualifies, the fact that it's so subjective and yet journalism in general is so important means we should not try prosecuting people for it in any except the most egregious cases (such as where the reporter is later on record saying they were purposefully misrepresenting the situation to cause a problem). Anything else is an erosion of our rights as a people, since journalism is for our benefit. I think you may have been looking at my comment as though I was someone agreeing or disagreeing with you specifically, and that may have colored your interpretation slightly. My intent was actually to make use of your pulpit to make what I thought was a related point, and wasn't specifically meant as a direct response to you. I mention this because I'm not entirely sure the point you are trying to convey in the last couple paragraphs, and how it relates.
kbenson 10y ago
For your edit: > I don't see why you feel "journalism" is a legally protected status. Because the first amendment both stipulated freedom of speech and specifically the rights of the press. It's core to how our democracy functions. Without an informed populace, there can be no democracy. > What protections do journalists have that I don't if I write wherever I want? That question belies an assumption (or uses it for effect) that you aren't a journalist if you write what you want. This is a controversial assumption that is getting more attention as the hurdles to publishing have been lowered with the internet. Everyone has the capability to be a journalist now, even if it's only for a moment. What you specifically get as a journalist (meaning you are partaking in journalism) is specific protection in some cases[1], and general protection from your general actions being legislated against through the first amendment. > What obligations do they have that they can be criminally prosecuted for? (albeit in 'egregious' cases). They cannot break the law. That said, they are protected automatically from laws that target journalism through the first amendment. In this case, a law about being part of(?) a riot has been leveled against her, but she has clear constitutional rights to protect any actions that were for the benefit of the populace by reporting on the incident. Just being present is not enough. On the other hand, if she were found to have been suggesting that people take action at the location, rather than just reporting on what they were doing, I think that is something they could legally and constitutionally attempt to prosecute, as she was not just reporting the situation, she was causing the situation (presumably not through informing the people present of the facts). Not that I've seen any evidence to suggest this is the case, beyond the charge itself. I am not a lawyer though, so take what I say as opinion and as I understand it. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_Stat...
- logicallee 10y ago
  Thank you.

kbenson 10y ago

> we both think that Democracy Now is pushing an extremely strong agenda and is not objective journalism. Well, I don't specifically think that, as I have far too little information to make that judgement. I have very little exposure to Democracy Now (like a couple minutes of one episode, then the occassional snippet repeated elsewhere over the years) . What little exposure I have had had a feel of being a bit less objective than it could be, but I specifically was not trying to make my point dependent on that, as I think it's important and should stand on its own. It should make sense without Amy Goodman or Democracy Now taken into consideration at all. Journalism needs protection, some people profess to be journalists but aren't by any stretch, it's a slippery slope to go after them since we don't have an objective way to qualify journalism, nor a legal framework that I know of to make it workable without trampling rights. > where you lightly add "though not legally" .. I don't think that was lightly added. That was the point of the comment. Journalists are protected because they provide a vital service, and while it can be confusing and subjective as to whether someone thinks some piece of writing qualifies, the fact that it's so subjective and yet journalism in general is so important means we should not try prosecuting people for it in any except the most egregious cases (such as where the reporter is later on record saying they were purposefully misrepresenting the situation to cause a problem). Anything else is an erosion of our rights as a people, since journalism is for our benefit. I think you may have been looking at my comment as though I was someone agreeing or disagreeing with you specifically, and that may have colored your interpretation slightly. My intent was actually to make use of your pulpit to make what I thought was a related point, and wasn't specifically meant as a direct response to you. I mention this because I'm not entirely sure the point you are trying to convey in the last couple paragraphs, and how it relates.

kbenson 10y ago

For your edit: > I don't see why you feel "journalism" is a legally protected status. Because the first amendment both stipulated freedom of speech and specifically the rights of the press. It's core to how our democracy functions. Without an informed populace, there can be no democracy. > What protections do journalists have that I don't if I write wherever I want? That question belies an assumption (or uses it for effect) that you aren't a journalist if you write what you want. This is a controversial assumption that is getting more attention as the hurdles to publishing have been lowered with the internet. Everyone has the capability to be a journalist now, even if it's only for a moment. What you specifically get as a journalist (meaning you are partaking in journalism) is specific protection in some cases[1], and general protection from your general actions being legislated against through the first amendment. > What obligations do they have that they can be criminally prosecuted for? (albeit in 'egregious' cases). They cannot break the law. That said, they are protected automatically from laws that target journalism through the first amendment. In this case, a law about being part of(?) a riot has been leveled against her, but she has clear constitutional rights to protect any actions that were for the benefit of the populace by reporting on the incident. Just being present is not enough. On the other hand, if she were found to have been suggesting that people take action at the location, rather than just reporting on what they were doing, I think that is something they could legally and constitutionally attempt to prosecute, as she was not just reporting the situation, she was causing the situation (presumably not through informing the people present of the facts). Not that I've seen any evidence to suggest this is the case, beyond the charge itself. I am not a lawyer though, so take what I say as opinion and as I understand it. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_Stat...

logicallee 10y ago
Thank you.