71 ms·

Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

769 points by schoen 10y ago

digitalmaster 10y ago
This is why real journalist need to be protected regardless where you stand on the issues. It's a pillar of democracy for a very important reason.
- Banthum 10y ago
  Agreed, but let's make that even more general. No need to limit that to "real journalists", since then you're just asking for people to build an ivory tower and use it as a power base for control of "non-real" "journalists". Everyone needs to be free to speak their minds. Freedom of speech is for everyone.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Journalists need more than freedom of speech, they also need freedom to investigate. I suspect handing that to everyone is still ok, but speech is not enough.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Everyone needs the freedom to investigate, too.
    - sceew 10y ago
      Sounds like a huge grey area.
  - caiob 10y ago
    Exactly. And "Freedom of Speech" is a broad term, with a wide variety of implications. Freedom of speech also means being able to channel ideas that aren't as popular and most of the mainstream media may not agree with. People should be able to express those ideas as well.
    - mschuster91 10y ago
      > People should be able to express those ideas as well No. There is no place in the world for antisemitism, homophobia or other right-extremist views. These "opinions" are direct threats to people. And when the state, as it often does, fails to protect the marginalized, then in my opinion nearly anything is acceptable to stop these "opinions" from being expressed. We in Germany already have seen what happens when you let Nazis speak out and act in free, and the same goes for Stalinist ideologies - and also in America we see what happens. Evil to the core, all of it.
      - function_seven 10y ago
        You tell me what your model speech code would look like, and I'll show you how I could use it to shut your speech down within a decade.
        mschuster91 10y ago
        I generally agree with this point of view, but a look into history (you don't even have to go back to Hitler or Stalin - the last 10 years should be enough!) proves that "free speech without limits" as done in the US is a path to disaster. For what its worth, there are not small groups of people running around with Hakenkreuz flags and SS uniforms in the US. A dishonor to all the victims of the Third Reich. Please do not tell me you find this acceptable in any way.
        self-diversity 10y ago
        I've been alive and in the US for well over 10 years, and I pay a lot of attention to speech issues. What proof do you believe shows us to be on a path to disaster? I could agree that there are a lot of people who think their feelings should matter more than expression, but "disaster" seems ridiculously hyperbolic to me.
        function_seven 10y ago
        > For what its worth, there are not small groups of people running around with Hakenkreuz flags and SS uniforms in the US. A dishonor to all the victims of the Third Reich. Please do not tell me you find this acceptable in any way. I absolutely find it acceptable. It's proof that the 1st Amendment is alive and well. Consider these groups as the canaries in a coal mine. As soon as they're shut down, based solely on the content of their ideas, the whole point of free speech is doomed. You may think that only certain categories of ideas should be protected speech, and strive to enact that into law. But when the political winds change and your ideas become unacceptable, you'll have nothing to stand on when your speech is criminalized.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    We're at a precarious time in history when journalism is being used particularly effectively as an intentional disinformation tool. "Real journalism" unfortunately does need to be distinguished. Free speech doesn't encompass fraud.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      Does the constitution list fraud as an exception to the free speech provisions?
      - microcolonel 10y ago
        The speech itself is protected, but speech can be deemed a tort in a civil proceeding, regardless. Freedom of speech protects opinions and best-effort reporting of facts, not necessarily all speech. Granted, we have to be careful not to exclude too much from protected speech, or we will never have the right again. The canonical example is causing panic with malice of intent, such as yelling fire!, fire!, fire! in a crowded hall, knowing well that there is no fire and with the intent is to cause a trampling hazard. Fraud usually has to do with commercial statute (in the U.S., the UCC), where misrepresenting goods is grounds for a civil dispute.
      - amalcon 10y ago
        I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. Assuming you mean the Mexican constitution, it's kind of vague: Article 6 . The expression of ideas shall not be subject to any judicial or administrative investigation, unless it offends good morals, infringes the rights of others, incites to crime, or disturbs the public order. "Offends good morals" is not defined anywhere, so it's up to interpretation whether that includes fraud. "Infringes the rights of others" is defined in various places, but in similarly vague terms.
        tanderson92 10y ago
        Thanks.
    - gozur88 10y ago
  - secfirstmd 10y ago
    Agreed, also we work and advise many in Mexico who are not what some might call "real journalists" in the sense of working for a newspaper. Many of the people who have been targeted are bloggers, part time activists etc.
  - rdiddly 10y ago
    Freedom of speech is possible only where there is basic law & order. Everybody here is debating fine points of what speech should & shouldn't be allowed/protected - that assumes there's someone in charge to do the protecting/allowing. Well in Juarez the cartel is in charge, and they protect what they protect, and allow what they allow.
  - digitalmaster 10y ago
    I agree. The only reason I say "real" is to make the distinction between publicly stated opinions, feelings, tweets etc. and journalism. Journalism is really the painstaking gathering of information (usually from multiple sources) for every story you write. Among many other things it's also necessary to make clear distinctions between the facts of the evidence and a particular journalists conclusions/opinions reached based on this evidence. And yes you are correct in saying that this should in no way should prevent or limit people from speaking their minds and stating their opinions publicly.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  The problem is that these days, everyone has a different definition of "real journalist," and the group of people who fit that definition tend to be strongly correlated with the group of people who agree with the definer politically.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Indeed. I think the "real journalist" should be dropped: everyone needs to have the right and the protection to be able to do that job. Then, the "real journalist" could be just a matter of having capability, devotion and determination, not a class of people with special status. Unfortunately too much of "journalism" is nowadays just activism, using their position to try to influence others (end even shut down the voice of other people because they think this is even more effective influencing).
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  who are real journalist?
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Minor nit: where I live, we have freedom of the press. We do not have a special class of people called journalists. You have the right to publish anything you like without fear of retribution from the government or anybody else. This, along with the freedom to assemble, allows minority opinions to flourish through peaceful persuasion. It also allows sunlight into actions of criminals and the government. The crime against humanity here is that these folks do not feel safe to publish. Not that there are journalists being threatened. That's just the current method being used to shut the presses down. There are plenty of other methods that outside organizations use to shut down publishing -- burning buildings, violence against readers, blackmailing editors, having the government buy the presses, and so on. For every Mexico, there are several other countries where the presses have effectively been shut down -- only not so dramatically as this. That's actually a much worse situation.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    > You have the right to publish anything you like without fear of retribution from the government or anybody else. In the US, 1st amendment freedoms only protect against government retribution. There is nothing stopping someone from misinterpreting a tweet and getting you fired, nor is there anything to prevent someone digging up what causes you support outside of work and using that as cause to harass your employer into firing you.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      While true, you are protected from some types of retribution from others. For example, someone cannot kill or rob you because you express an opinion in defiance of the political or religious leadership.
      - komali2 10y ago
        Well, in my country, it's illegal to kill and rob people at all, so what's the different in your country?
      - tathougies 10y ago
- jessaustin 10y ago
  One wonders how many "real journalists" in USA will see this sad event as an occasion to bask in the reflected glory of those who really have spoken truth to power, and how many will instead call out the actual reason that gangsters have power: USA's foolish and evil drug prohibition.
  - digitalmaster 10y ago
    Yup.. the social and economic cost of this futile war is insane.. This talk really helped me realize how wrong we've been about this issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end_the_war_on_drugs https://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end...
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      That starts out strong, with the accounts of various on-the-ground drug warriors saying "the problem has to be solved on the other end, because it sure can't be solved here!" He kind of lost the thread as the talk went on. It would have been more effective to really dig in on examples of destroyed lives, both north and south of the border. Statistics by themselves are less compelling. Also I was distracted by trying to figure out whether that was a really small mustache or some sort of birthmark.
- sceew 10y ago
  It's easy to say that when you lean left. Not sure what 'protecting journalists' entails. They should by treated just like every other citizen. Don't forget about JournoList: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList .
- sceew 10y ago
  http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spy...
itsmemattchung 10y ago
> The committee reported that since 1992, 38 journalists have been killed with the motives for the slayings confirmed as reprisals for their work. Based on that figure, the group ranked Mexico as No. 11 of the 20 deadliest countries for journalists. I cannot imagine living in a country where posting something online, like a silly blog post, risks my life.
- zymhan 10y ago
  And yet, there are people in your situation, who cannot imagine that life, who condemn those who flee in search of a safe and stable place to live. Why do people have such a hard time accepting refugees of such violence? This isn't directed at the parent commenter, of course.
- komali2 10y ago
  Are you sure? Any American that's written something controversial inevitably will tell the story of the death threats they received after. JK Rowling got them for writing about child wizards. Planned Parenthood supporters get them. Trump electors have gotten them. Kim Kardashian (ugh) got them for a tweet supporting Israel. It's easy to find lists of Americans that have received death threats, but much harder to find Americans actually killed because of their silly posts. Would love to read more about it.
  - seppin 10y ago
    > but much harder to find Americans actually killed because of their silly posts can you name one?
    - komali2 10y ago
      >Would love to read more about it.
  - chipperyman573 10y ago
    Receiving a death threat is nowhere near as terrifying as seeing one of your colleagues show up in the obituaries.
telesilla 10y ago
I truly love the country of México - I have spent a large periods of time there for the climate, as a place to work and have a wonderful life, away from the chills of winter. I often thought about making a permanent relocation, but this terror is too real and I found myself living in constant anxiety of my friends and colleagues being in danger, and the fear of speaking your mind weighs on you after a while. I am saddened because the people, the food, the weather, the architecture (particularly D.F.) makes for a crazy, exciting mix where the wealth and treasure of history and (deserved) national pride contrasts with poverty and the political and social conservatism that goes alongside. México: may things improve for you, though I really have no idea how that will happen.
- ggregoire 10y ago
  > I truly love the country of México [...] but this terror is too real and I found myself living in constant anxiety of my friends and colleagues being in danger To be fair with Mexico, those issues don't affect the whole country. Mexico City is pretty safe for example. If you want to travel to Mexico, here is a list of states and cities to avoid: https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/mexico-travel-warning.html https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings...
  - telesilla 10y ago
    My friends are thinkers and challengers of the system: it's for them I am more worried, that they can't speak freely. I could move to Condesa and live a protected life, but that's just colonialism (using my spending power to put a cocoon around me with Uber and private parties). That's not the México I'm interested in. I've also been mugged rather violently there anyway on Calle Amsterdam, (though no worse than Barcelona for example, being in the wrong place or time) and I've had Mexican friends sitting in traffic going to work, having a gun pulled on them for their wallet. I'm not really sure how safe Mexico City really is, once you get out of the ex-pat bubble.
    - zeppelin101 10y ago
      Almost hard to believe that you could have gotten mugged in that part of DF. But maybe at night?
benley 10y ago
No offense (really), but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're a guy, because ... * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/11/women-online-abuse-threat-racist https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/11/women-onl... * http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/07/29/feminist-writer-jessica-valenti-quits-twitter-after-rape-and-death-threat-against-5-year-old-daughter/ http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/07/29/femini... * https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429996-000-the-fight-back-against-rape-and-death-threats-online/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429996-000-the-figh... * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3454588/Women-gamers-reveal-vile-online-abuse-receive-DAY-men-say-kitchen.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3454588/Women-game...
- zeveb 10y ago
  No lives were actually at risk in the linked stories, though: lives are at risk in Mexico. Some twit threatening you does mean that your life is at risk; a drug lord trying to kill you does.
  - foldr 10y ago
    You're not really in any position to say whether or not lives are at risk, unless you have specific knowledge of the people making the threats. Most online death threats are empty, of course, but that's a relatively small consolation if you actually receive one.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Guys get those threats and abuse as well, they're just not worth a gender-specific headline because they're guys.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  why would you say "no offense" except to precede posting something offensive? I think you meant to offend. do mean tweets count as death threats in the same way that international drug cartel kidnapping your sister does? can I add that I'm offended that you're conflating the two? please don't do that. it seems like you're making light of the real violence going on in Mexico, and also promoting a biased and unfair narrative that makes women seem much weaker and more helpless than they actually are.
arkitaip 10y ago
I have nothing but respect for the journalists of Mexico and the incredibly valuable and dangerous job that they do every single day so I hope it doesn't come off as to condescending or uninformed to suggest that journalists wanting to investigate drug cartels and the government should set up underground printing presses. During World War 2 many resistance members did so in countries occupied by the Axis Powers and they were able to print and distribute their newspapers out under the most dangerous conditions imaginable [1][2]. Of course, in 2017 it's easier to set up a clandestine press organization using the internet, but I'm certain that there are many valuable lessons to learn from WW2. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_press [2] https://warpress.cegesoma.be/en/node/13 https://warpress.cegesoma.be/en/node/13
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  Blog Del Narco[1] is one such underground source. Of course, some accuse it of falling short of journalistic standards because it filters almost nothing, and so has often been used as a de facto PR outlet for numerous cartels. Even so, one of its founders is believed to have been murdered in 2013, and the other was forced to leave Mexico permanently. [1]http://www.blogdelnarco.com/ http://www.blogdelnarco.com/
  - joemi 10y ago
    Similar situation with Narco News[1] (though I know nothing of its journalistic standards)... I had a friend who was working for them in Mexico about 15 years ago, and he ended up quitting and leaving the country after a co-worker was killed. [1]http://www.narconews.com/ http://www.narconews.com/
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    BDN is a use at your own risk site. I far prefer www.borderlandbeat.com Very committed group working with material to translate into English to spread knowledge about the goings on in the large scope of the country. Many different regions / players. Just a suggestion.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mschuster91 10y ago
Trumps goons are hunting immigrants as we write here. Trump supporters regularly beat up people of color. Police regularly shoots black people. And Trumps entire team believes climate change is fake news - this alone will lead the US and the world with it into a desaster.
- self-diversity 10y ago
  Can you draw any lines between what you've listed and speech issues? I wasn't asking for reasons you hate Donald Trump.
- komali2 10y ago
  I haven't yet seen data that hate crimes are on the rise, just that media coverage of them is (in America). That... doesn't really seem like a bad thing to me. Getting these heinous crimes in the light seems like it could do only good (or horribly backfire, I suppose). >Police regularly shoot black people I don't see a correlation between this and an increase in hate speech. Or really, even, evidence that police shooting of minorities is on the rise, or that hate speech is on the rise. I'm open to be challenged with new data, though. >Climate change Again, a very very big problem (I personally believe Trump's POV on climate change combined with his significant power should beget him the title "enemy of humanity"), but I really don't understand what that would have to do with hate speech.
  - aianus 10y ago
    I assume he wants to solve climate change by criminalizing climate change denial like holocaust denial is in Germany. Pretty absurd.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Indeed. The founder of Greenpeace, a PhD in Ecology, is a "climate change" skeptic. Or maybe he just thinks it's better for trees if the oceans destroy our coastal cities? Not really clear here, but the point is, he disagrees with the prevailing line of thought. :P [0] I have done very little research on climate change and have nothing to discuss with reference to the matter, but the suggestion that such a person should not be allowed to express his views because they violate the narrative pushed by the corporate media is absurd. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalis...
driverdan 10y ago
I'm guessing there's more to it than the risk. Maybe it was in financial trouble, maybe the owner(s) wanted out anyway, maybe they were threatened directly or paid off, or maybe something else.
tracker1 10y ago
I'm curious if any of the reporters will continue their work for foreign news agencies under pseudonyms to protect their local identity.
- wonderous 10y ago
  Someone would rat them out, a source would be discovered and give them away, they'd out themselves for ego, make a fatal operational security error, etc.
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
It's us, the USA, that is causing this paper to shutdown. The cartels are financed by the insatiable drug appetite of its close neighbor. Our inability and/or unwillingness to legalize recreational drugs is the feeding tube for these vicious groups.
- 2_listerine_pls 10y ago
  It's surprisingly simple to locate the plantations using LIDAR + spectrometry. Even easier in Afghanistan, where fields are cultivated in the open. It's so well documented that the UNDOC provides an anual report with the amount in acres. I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>Insatiable drug appetite is a constant Says who?
    - callalex 10y ago
      The decades upon decades of failed abolishment efforts speak for themselves.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      So I'm by no means pro-drug, and I agree that most people who say "it's impossible to fix because we haven't fixed it yet" lack imagination, but there is absolutely some fishy stuff going on with drug policy. What we are doing now is broken, has been broken, and everyone knows it's broken. There are hidden motives here, no doubt. Corruption is a very real thing and there are a lot of people with a lot at stake regarding drug policy. The most important thing to successful drug prohibition and treatment is a semi-controllable grey market.
  - jfim 10y ago
    > I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped. Except for that pesky sovereignty thing.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wonderous 10y ago
Less than 1% of crimes are punished in Mexico: http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/mexico-impunity-levels-reach-99-study http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/mexico-impunity-leve...
- seppin 10y ago
  interesting. I wonder how that ranks against other lawless countries / regions
  - mtgx 10y ago
    In stark contrast with Russia, where only 1% of those prosecuted don't go to prison: http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/russias-99-conviction-rate-thrown-into-question http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/russias-99-convi...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
brooklynmarket 10y ago
Can someone explain to me, what would happen if Mexico tomorrow, all drugs were legal like Portugal? Could it get any worse. Portugal seems to doing just fine.
- 3131s 10y ago
  Just to clarify, drugs are not legal in Portugal. There is decriminalization on small amounts, but not full legalization. However, Portugal's experiment is a resounding success and I'd expect even greater benefits from legalization (e.g. tax money derived from the industry around recreational drugs).
  - nakedrobot2 10y ago
    Well yes but this is a nitpick in my opinion. Drug possession in personal amounts is not a criminal offense. So they are no longer "super illegal" you could say. It's in the same category as a driving offense or something like that. Same in Czech Republic.
    - 3131s 10y ago
      It's not a nitpick at all. Without legalization there is no tax money from sales of recreational drugs, and the black market still exists to collect that profit instead. Decriminalization also does not fix problems like contamination of drugs, mislabeling, or inconsistent dosage, whereas legalization would. Decriminalization is better than nothing but actually misses out on most of the benefits.
- sdlion 10y ago
  There is work towards that end in Mexico. A selected few got a Supreme Court ruling that supports the legal use and growth of marijuana for personal use [1]. It didn't make it legal, but it sets precedence and a framework to keep the wheel moving to eventually make it legal like in other countries. Through this very same process last year the whole country make it same-sex marriage legal. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/world/americas/mexico-supreme-court-marijuana-ruling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/world/americas/mexico-sup...
douche 10y ago
The entire Spanish new world has been a failed state for the past 300 years. Peruvian and Mexican metals kept them viable for a while, but that ran out long ago. Coke has barely filled the void, thanks to US prohibition.
- Findeton 10y ago
  Chile, Panama, Argentina are pretty good in comparison to many other countries. Also if you take into account the last 300 years, well... not only Argentina was richer than the USA 100 years ago but Venezuela (yes, Venezuela) was in better economic shape than, for example Spain, for decades during the XX century.
  - douche 10y ago
    There's no way that Argentina was richer than the US in 1917, when American manufacturers and bankers were busily sucking up the wealth of the Entente powers by supplying war materiel and loans. Not even ten years ago, Venezuela was the darling of the NY Times, among others, under Chavez. Of course, gasoline was close to $4 a gallon then.
  - douche 10y ago
    Also, Panama would still be a malarial pesthole without the Canal. Reading up on the various canal schemes in different regions of that era and the French and then American efforts to build the Canal is very interesting.
- tim333 10y ago
  Columbia has done a pretty good turn around from Mexican style violence to peaceful.
  - Findeton 10y ago
    I think you mean Colombia, not Columbia :)
    - 10y ago
known 10y ago
Why not give guns to journalists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_owner...
- tim333 10y ago
  Not sure how that's supposed to help. If some sniper shoots you it doesn't make much difference if you were carrying a gun or not.
tempodox 10y ago
Stopping the flow of money to the cartels would require the U.S. and others to legalize drugs and make the prices plummet. Is the upkeep of hypocrisy and the DEA really worth any amount of murder and corruption?
- sparrish 10y ago
  Legalizing wouldn't stop the flow. You think they'd just throw up their arms and walk away? Cartels would just lower their prices and keep pushing to existing addicts and creating addicts. Once the price is driven down, how are 'legal' drug manufacturers expected to compete on price with taxes, licensing, overhead? Legalizing won't stop blackmarket drugs, it will only increase it like in Colorado. http://kdvr.com/2017/03/03/black-market-marijuana-business-booming/ http://kdvr.com/2017/03/03/black-market-marijuana-business-b...
netmask 10y ago
well actually the "El Norte" news paper was about to close much before that the journalist was murdered, the thing is that specific newspaper was in a thigh relation with the ex chihuahua governor( now fugitive ) Cesar Duarte, the owners of the newspaper takes this tragic to get some political tax against the new governor from the oposition Javier corral
Andredi4Real 10y ago
Mexico can be super dangerous. But it is a beautiful country with so much to offer. If you go to the right places though it is very safe.
Pica_soO 10y ago
I wish there was some mafia approach to rebuild a civil state. This is our house, our block, our town, we avoid interacting with people who support the corrupt government and we do not interact with Narcosi. Just shut out all strangers, isolate people who pose a long term thread to your community. Shun the restaurant, where the cops eat, walk your dog to where the drug dealers are. Create small economy's, which do not bribe, do not interact with drug money, do not sell to gang-members and "public" officials. Have a cell-structured civil service with a anonymously voted for or against major.
- kakarot 10y ago
  Walk our dogs to the dealer's house but not touch drug money? Could you clarify this seeming contradiction?
  - Pica_soO 10y ago
    It was a lame example for civil dis-obedience. You let your dog shit where the drug-deals go down. Have a farmer spray the whole parking lot with merde. Primitive, not over the violence threshold, and yet, unpleasant. Sorry, its really tough to come up with something that would deter, but not escalate.
    - kakarot 10y ago
      Why would you purposefully spread feces next to drug dealers? What has this demographic of society that is largely born of economic desperation done to be condemned by us so?
- saganus 10y ago
  There are certain efforts with a somewhat similar idea behind them, called "auto defensas" meaning "self-defense (civilian) forces". Basically people in towns ravaged by narcos got fed up with it and started defending themselves because they couldn't trust the local/federal authorities to defend them anymore. A very brave thing to do if you ask me. However... the sad part is that, on the one hand, fighting an armed group with so much man- and fire-power as the different cartel groups have, it's very hard. Especially because a lot of these narco armed forces have actual military training and even when not, they are so ruthless and savage that it's hard to fight back. The sheer amount of terror these groups can inflict is staggering. Some of these towns that chose to defend themselves were some time later attacked by huge convoys of 100+ attackers armed with grenade launchers, automatic weapons, frigging M60s and even heavier ones (some groups have anti-air guns strapped to the back of their trucks)... and most importantly, these attackers were ready to kill on sight, whereas the townspeople were armed with hunting rifles and some handguns and definitely not with the same blood lust and ability (or even the nerve) to kill people. Lots of these towns are now deserted because people had to fled to the surrounding areas after such violent payback attacks. And to top it all off, if you at least had the government NOT intervene either way... well, you could maybe stand your ground for some time. The problem is that in most of these places the government authorities where actually against having armed civilian forces (and in some cases even in cohoots with the narcos), so they would have to fight both against armed forces AND against government propaganda ("these are not self-defense forces, they are just another narco group taking hold of the town") plastered all over the country in major newspapers and tv stations (which de-legitimizes those self-defense forces that are actually trying to, you know, defend themselves), while at the same time local and federal forces trying to dis-arm them. It's a really complicated problem for which I definitely have no idea how to solve. Just imagine having to stand up and defend your town against a military force that, by some estimations, could reach upwards of 15,000 armed men... in one cartel alone. What can a town with a total population of...what... 3,000? 10,000 people? do against a heavily armed and trained para-military force? And to be clear, those people that did try to defend themselves have my utmost respect. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of desperation you need to be in to try to fight back to such a powerful and horrific group of people. But in the end it's heartbreaking to see them defend themselves to just later have them be wiped out or threatened with so much torture and terror that it boggles the mind. A lot of these self-defense forces held up for maybe 2 or 3 years and are now either bought and influenced by some competing narco group or just terrorized out of their towns forever (at least that's what little info I could gather over the years of reading different news sources, both official and otherwise. Not really sure how much of that is real or not since I don't live in any of these towns). It just doesn't seem... feasible. Maybe I'm a defeatist saying these things... but holy shit, you just have to listen to what someone like Dr. Mireles [1] had to say to get a tiny part of the terrible picture here. The problem is much much bigger than people can imagine... and I'm not even in the front line here. I'm just some city dude "far" away (as much as "far away" can one be while living here in this country) from these realities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Mireles_Valverde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Mireles_Valve...
khanbalam 10y ago
I am from Mexico and live in Mexico City. To clarify a little bit, the newspaper is from a northern state. And yes, things in the northern states are rather violent and dangerous. But to be honest the really bad state is the one close to the capital, Estado de México which has many violent crime, crime against women, etc. We even joke that is like Mad Max fury road. Yes that bad. Yet people go to work, to school and carry on. As everything there are many sides and conflicting interests. Yet violence and crime are just one more bad thing to worry, being traffic and low income being other stuff you have to take into consideration. As tourists you could always go to many other places instead of Ciudad Juárez or Tijuana since those two have become cities for degenerate people from other countries to abuse and commit atrocities and get away with it for the only reason that they have the dollars.
- saganus 10y ago
  "But to be honest the really bad state is the one close to the capital". Not even close. A couple of years ago on a SINGLE year there were some 5 or 6 narco-blockades in Guadalajara for example (that's one every few months and we are talking 25 to 35 buses lit on fire in the middle of the day, across major streets that prevent people from entering or leaving the city for several hours, on each blockade event, all around the city at the same time, which btw shows how coordinated these criminal groups are). Have you personally been there? It's really not a nice sight and it's frightening as shit. Especially when they happen so frequently that at some point you just have to ignore it to be able to carry on with your life? Have you been to Xalapa, the capital of Veracruz? where armed people dressed as Federal Forces kidnap people with impunity? Have you had to move around in the city in daylight and watch how military convoys armed to the teeth go around patrolling the streets instead of the Police (mind you this is a town that has a population of less than 1M, i.e. it's more of a town than a big city so people are not used to military presence)? Have you been to Veracruz city where the Navy had to literally disarm the local police and take control of police duties for a few months? how about getting stopped by a military checkpoint in the middle of the city? especially after watching in the news how many times military personnel at those same checkpoints fired upon (and killed) entire families because they felt threatened? Have you ever talked to someone that got arrested AND tortured by the police because they thought (incorrectly) that the guy was a member of the cartel? and then seeing this person suffer permanent hearing loss on one side because of how many times his captors slammed his ear against the wall repeatedly for hours at a time? I've personally lived all these things and let me tell you, "the really bad state is the one close to the capital" is not true at all. Not sure if it's the news not reporting these things, or maybe there's so much shit going on in EdoMex (which I know it's not really a peaceful place) that there's simply no more room for bad news from other parts of the country, but you can definitely find much worse in other states. Let's not even talk about Guerrero, where I have friends that witnessed headless bodies being dumped on the road... and then having some shady car follow them to their home because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sorry for being so crude... Mexico is a wonderful country full of great things and I love it. But crazy, crazy shit does happen outside of the capital and EdoMex, and while it's definitely not something that happens everyday, it's always a constant fear in the back of your head... "what if they kidnap MY family because their business was successful enough to stand up?", "what if my girlfriend goes out tonight to some bar that happens to have fucking military-grade grenades thrown at because some random cartel dude wanted to celebrate that same night at that same place?"
wolfkill 10y ago
My wife is from a small town in Mexico where there has been a recent surge in violence and kidnappings. Her family is there and we go visit once a year or so as we can. Last time I was there there was a couple of moments that made realize I was just waiting for something terrible to happen. I worry I (as the American) am painting a target on my wife's family. Every time they call unexpectedly I fear for the worst. Right now, I'm not sure if we will go this year.
lucain 10y ago
I'm native from cd Juarez and I have a friend who is a journalist photographer and I'm sorry to tell you guys that even indeed free and critical journalism is on constant jeopardy because of the drug cartels and the corrupt government this journal didn't closed because it was to dangerous to do so. My friend told me that it closed because it was not profitable anymore. The facebook rant about it: https://www.facebook.com/sugeyry/posts/10154385439001931?pnref=story https://www.facebook.com/sugeyry/posts/10154385439001931?pnr... Keep in mind that this is a journalist talking about a decision made the by owner of the paper a while ago, the original decision haves nothing to do with the death of Miroslava Breach or with some pressure of drug gangs. This paper was under the payroll of the late government now followed for corruption and money laundry (Cesar Duarte former governor is hidden at El Paso at this moment). And the "it is too dangerous to continue" is more a political cry out than any other thing. Yes: times are still hard at Juarez, journalism is still a high risk job. But this is not a statement.

769 points by schoen 10y ago

This is why real journalist need to be protected regardless where you stand on the issues. It's a pillar of democracy for a very important reason.

Banthum 10y ago
Agreed, but let's make that even more general. No need to limit that to "real journalists", since then you're just asking for people to build an ivory tower and use it as a power base for control of "non-real" "journalists". Everyone needs to be free to speak their minds. Freedom of speech is for everyone.
- Retric 10y ago
  Journalists need more than freedom of speech, they also need freedom to investigate. I suspect handing that to everyone is still ok, but speech is not enough.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Everyone needs the freedom to investigate, too.
  - sceew 10y ago
    Sounds like a huge grey area.
- caiob 10y ago
  Exactly. And "Freedom of Speech" is a broad term, with a wide variety of implications. Freedom of speech also means being able to channel ideas that aren't as popular and most of the mainstream media may not agree with. People should be able to express those ideas as well.
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    > People should be able to express those ideas as well No. There is no place in the world for antisemitism, homophobia or other right-extremist views. These "opinions" are direct threats to people. And when the state, as it often does, fails to protect the marginalized, then in my opinion nearly anything is acceptable to stop these "opinions" from being expressed. We in Germany already have seen what happens when you let Nazis speak out and act in free, and the same goes for Stalinist ideologies - and also in America we see what happens. Evil to the core, all of it.
    - function_seven 10y ago
      You tell me what your model speech code would look like, and I'll show you how I could use it to shut your speech down within a decade.
      - mschuster91 10y ago
        I generally agree with this point of view, but a look into history (you don't even have to go back to Hitler or Stalin - the last 10 years should be enough!) proves that "free speech without limits" as done in the US is a path to disaster. For what its worth, there are not small groups of people running around with Hakenkreuz flags and SS uniforms in the US. A dishonor to all the victims of the Third Reich. Please do not tell me you find this acceptable in any way.
        self-diversity 10y ago
        I've been alive and in the US for well over 10 years, and I pay a lot of attention to speech issues. What proof do you believe shows us to be on a path to disaster? I could agree that there are a lot of people who think their feelings should matter more than expression, but "disaster" seems ridiculously hyperbolic to me.
        function_seven 10y ago
        > For what its worth, there are not small groups of people running around with Hakenkreuz flags and SS uniforms in the US. A dishonor to all the victims of the Third Reich. Please do not tell me you find this acceptable in any way. I absolutely find it acceptable. It's proof that the 1st Amendment is alive and well. Consider these groups as the canaries in a coal mine. As soon as they're shut down, based solely on the content of their ideas, the whole point of free speech is doomed. You may think that only certain categories of ideas should be protected speech, and strive to enact that into law. But when the political winds change and your ideas become unacceptable, you'll have nothing to stand on when your speech is criminalized.
- gdulli 10y ago
  We're at a precarious time in history when journalism is being used particularly effectively as an intentional disinformation tool. "Real journalism" unfortunately does need to be distinguished. Free speech doesn't encompass fraud.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Does the constitution list fraud as an exception to the free speech provisions?
    - microcolonel 10y ago
      The speech itself is protected, but speech can be deemed a tort in a civil proceeding, regardless. Freedom of speech protects opinions and best-effort reporting of facts, not necessarily all speech. Granted, we have to be careful not to exclude too much from protected speech, or we will never have the right again. The canonical example is causing panic with malice of intent, such as yelling fire!, fire!, fire! in a crowded hall, knowing well that there is no fire and with the intent is to cause a trampling hazard. Fraud usually has to do with commercial statute (in the U.S., the UCC), where misrepresenting goods is grounds for a civil dispute.
    - amalcon 10y ago
      I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. Assuming you mean the Mexican constitution, it's kind of vague: Article 6 . The expression of ideas shall not be subject to any judicial or administrative investigation, unless it offends good morals, infringes the rights of others, incites to crime, or disturbs the public order. "Offends good morals" is not defined anywhere, so it's up to interpretation whether that includes fraud. "Infringes the rights of others" is defined in various places, but in similarly vague terms.
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        Thanks.
  - gozur88 10y ago
- secfirstmd 10y ago
  Agreed, also we work and advise many in Mexico who are not what some might call "real journalists" in the sense of working for a newspaper. Many of the people who have been targeted are bloggers, part time activists etc.
- rdiddly 10y ago
  Freedom of speech is possible only where there is basic law & order. Everybody here is debating fine points of what speech should & shouldn't be allowed/protected - that assumes there's someone in charge to do the protecting/allowing. Well in Juarez the cartel is in charge, and they protect what they protect, and allow what they allow.
- digitalmaster 10y ago
  I agree. The only reason I say "real" is to make the distinction between publicly stated opinions, feelings, tweets etc. and journalism. Journalism is really the painstaking gathering of information (usually from multiple sources) for every story you write. Among many other things it's also necessary to make clear distinctions between the facts of the evidence and a particular journalists conclusions/opinions reached based on this evidence. And yes you are correct in saying that this should in no way should prevent or limit people from speaking their minds and stating their opinions publicly.
ivraatiems 10y ago
The problem is that these days, everyone has a different definition of "real journalist," and the group of people who fit that definition tend to be strongly correlated with the group of people who agree with the definer politically.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Indeed. I think the "real journalist" should be dropped: everyone needs to have the right and the protection to be able to do that job. Then, the "real journalist" could be just a matter of having capability, devotion and determination, not a class of people with special status. Unfortunately too much of "journalism" is nowadays just activism, using their position to try to influence others (end even shut down the voice of other people because they think this is even more effective influencing).
wheelerwj 10y ago
who are real journalist?
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Minor nit: where I live, we have freedom of the press. We do not have a special class of people called journalists. You have the right to publish anything you like without fear of retribution from the government or anybody else. This, along with the freedom to assemble, allows minority opinions to flourish through peaceful persuasion. It also allows sunlight into actions of criminals and the government. The crime against humanity here is that these folks do not feel safe to publish. Not that there are journalists being threatened. That's just the current method being used to shut the presses down. There are plenty of other methods that outside organizations use to shut down publishing -- burning buildings, violence against readers, blackmailing editors, having the government buy the presses, and so on. For every Mexico, there are several other countries where the presses have effectively been shut down -- only not so dramatically as this. That's actually a much worse situation.
- coredog64 10y ago
  > You have the right to publish anything you like without fear of retribution from the government or anybody else. In the US, 1st amendment freedoms only protect against government retribution. There is nothing stopping someone from misinterpreting a tweet and getting you fired, nor is there anything to prevent someone digging up what causes you support outside of work and using that as cause to harass your employer into firing you.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    While true, you are protected from some types of retribution from others. For example, someone cannot kill or rob you because you express an opinion in defiance of the political or religious leadership.
    - komali2 10y ago
      Well, in my country, it's illegal to kill and rob people at all, so what's the different in your country?
    - tathougies 10y ago
jessaustin 10y ago
One wonders how many "real journalists" in USA will see this sad event as an occasion to bask in the reflected glory of those who really have spoken truth to power, and how many will instead call out the actual reason that gangsters have power: USA's foolish and evil drug prohibition.
- digitalmaster 10y ago
  Yup.. the social and economic cost of this futile war is insane.. This talk really helped me realize how wrong we've been about this issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end_the_war_on_drugs https://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end...
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    That starts out strong, with the accounts of various on-the-ground drug warriors saying "the problem has to be solved on the other end, because it sure can't be solved here!" He kind of lost the thread as the talk went on. It would have been more effective to really dig in on examples of destroyed lives, both north and south of the border. Statistics by themselves are less compelling. Also I was distracted by trying to figure out whether that was a really small mustache or some sort of birthmark.
sceew 10y ago
It's easy to say that when you lean left. Not sure what 'protecting journalists' entails. They should by treated just like every other citizen. Don't forget about JournoList: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList .
sceew 10y ago
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spy...

itsmemattchung 10y ago

> The committee reported that since 1992, 38 journalists have been killed with the motives for the slayings confirmed as reprisals for their work. Based on that figure, the group ranked Mexico as No. 11 of the 20 deadliest countries for journalists. I cannot imagine living in a country where posting something online, like a silly blog post, risks my life.

zymhan 10y ago
And yet, there are people in your situation, who cannot imagine that life, who condemn those who flee in search of a safe and stable place to live. Why do people have such a hard time accepting refugees of such violence? This isn't directed at the parent commenter, of course.
komali2 10y ago
Are you sure? Any American that's written something controversial inevitably will tell the story of the death threats they received after. JK Rowling got them for writing about child wizards. Planned Parenthood supporters get them. Trump electors have gotten them. Kim Kardashian (ugh) got them for a tweet supporting Israel. It's easy to find lists of Americans that have received death threats, but much harder to find Americans actually killed because of their silly posts. Would love to read more about it.
- seppin 10y ago
  > but much harder to find Americans actually killed because of their silly posts can you name one?
  - komali2 10y ago
    >Would love to read more about it.
- chipperyman573 10y ago
  Receiving a death threat is nowhere near as terrifying as seeing one of your colleagues show up in the obituaries.

telesilla 10y ago

I truly love the country of México - I have spent a large periods of time there for the climate, as a place to work and have a wonderful life, away from the chills of winter. I often thought about making a permanent relocation, but this terror is too real and I found myself living in constant anxiety of my friends and colleagues being in danger, and the fear of speaking your mind weighs on you after a while. I am saddened because the people, the food, the weather, the architecture (particularly D.F.) makes for a crazy, exciting mix where the wealth and treasure of history and (deserved) national pride contrasts with poverty and the political and social conservatism that goes alongside. México: may things improve for you, though I really have no idea how that will happen.

ggregoire 10y ago
> I truly love the country of México [...] but this terror is too real and I found myself living in constant anxiety of my friends and colleagues being in danger To be fair with Mexico, those issues don't affect the whole country. Mexico City is pretty safe for example. If you want to travel to Mexico, here is a list of states and cities to avoid: https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/mexico-travel-warning.html https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings...
- telesilla 10y ago
  My friends are thinkers and challengers of the system: it's for them I am more worried, that they can't speak freely. I could move to Condesa and live a protected life, but that's just colonialism (using my spending power to put a cocoon around me with Uber and private parties). That's not the México I'm interested in. I've also been mugged rather violently there anyway on Calle Amsterdam, (though no worse than Barcelona for example, being in the wrong place or time) and I've had Mexican friends sitting in traffic going to work, having a gun pulled on them for their wallet. I'm not really sure how safe Mexico City really is, once you get out of the ex-pat bubble.
  - zeppelin101 10y ago
    Almost hard to believe that you could have gotten mugged in that part of DF. But maybe at night?

benley 10y ago

No offense (really), but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're a guy, because ... * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/11/women-online-abuse-threat-racist https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/11/women-onl... * http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/07/29/feminist-writer-jessica-valenti-quits-twitter-after-rape-and-death-threat-against-5-year-old-daughter/ http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/07/29/femini... * https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429996-000-the-fight-back-against-rape-and-death-threats-online/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429996-000-the-figh... * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3454588/Women-gamers-reveal-vile-online-abuse-receive-DAY-men-say-kitchen.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3454588/Women-game...

zeveb 10y ago
No lives were actually at risk in the linked stories, though: lives are at risk in Mexico. Some twit threatening you does mean that your life is at risk; a drug lord trying to kill you does.
- foldr 10y ago
  You're not really in any position to say whether or not lives are at risk, unless you have specific knowledge of the people making the threats. Most online death threats are empty, of course, but that's a relatively small consolation if you actually receive one.
ptaipale 10y ago
Guys get those threats and abuse as well, they're just not worth a gender-specific headline because they're guys.
metaphorm 10y ago
why would you say "no offense" except to precede posting something offensive? I think you meant to offend. do mean tweets count as death threats in the same way that international drug cartel kidnapping your sister does? can I add that I'm offended that you're conflating the two? please don't do that. it seems like you're making light of the real violence going on in Mexico, and also promoting a biased and unfair narrative that makes women seem much weaker and more helpless than they actually are.

arkitaip 10y ago

I have nothing but respect for the journalists of Mexico and the incredibly valuable and dangerous job that they do every single day so I hope it doesn't come off as to condescending or uninformed to suggest that journalists wanting to investigate drug cartels and the government should set up underground printing presses. During World War 2 many resistance members did so in countries occupied by the Axis Powers and they were able to print and distribute their newspapers out under the most dangerous conditions imaginable [1][2]. Of course, in 2017 it's easier to set up a clandestine press organization using the internet, but I'm certain that there are many valuable lessons to learn from WW2. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_press [2] https://warpress.cegesoma.be/en/node/13 https://warpress.cegesoma.be/en/node/13

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
Blog Del Narco[1] is one such underground source. Of course, some accuse it of falling short of journalistic standards because it filters almost nothing, and so has often been used as a de facto PR outlet for numerous cartels. Even so, one of its founders is believed to have been murdered in 2013, and the other was forced to leave Mexico permanently. [1]http://www.blogdelnarco.com/ http://www.blogdelnarco.com/
- joemi 10y ago
  Similar situation with Narco News[1] (though I know nothing of its journalistic standards)... I had a friend who was working for them in Mexico about 15 years ago, and he ended up quitting and leaving the country after a co-worker was killed. [1]http://www.narconews.com/ http://www.narconews.com/
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  BDN is a use at your own risk site. I far prefer www.borderlandbeat.com Very committed group working with material to translate into English to spread knowledge about the goings on in the large scope of the country. Many different regions / players. Just a suggestion.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mschuster91 10y ago

Trumps goons are hunting immigrants as we write here. Trump supporters regularly beat up people of color. Police regularly shoots black people. And Trumps entire team believes climate change is fake news - this alone will lead the US and the world with it into a desaster.

self-diversity 10y ago
Can you draw any lines between what you've listed and speech issues? I wasn't asking for reasons you hate Donald Trump.
komali2 10y ago
I haven't yet seen data that hate crimes are on the rise, just that media coverage of them is (in America). That... doesn't really seem like a bad thing to me. Getting these heinous crimes in the light seems like it could do only good (or horribly backfire, I suppose). >Police regularly shoot black people I don't see a correlation between this and an increase in hate speech. Or really, even, evidence that police shooting of minorities is on the rise, or that hate speech is on the rise. I'm open to be challenged with new data, though. >Climate change Again, a very very big problem (I personally believe Trump's POV on climate change combined with his significant power should beget him the title "enemy of humanity"), but I really don't understand what that would have to do with hate speech.
- aianus 10y ago
  I assume he wants to solve climate change by criminalizing climate change denial like holocaust denial is in Germany. Pretty absurd.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Indeed. The founder of Greenpeace, a PhD in Ecology, is a "climate change" skeptic. Or maybe he just thinks it's better for trees if the oceans destroy our coastal cities? Not really clear here, but the point is, he disagrees with the prevailing line of thought. :P [0] I have done very little research on climate change and have nothing to discuss with reference to the matter, but the suggestion that such a person should not be allowed to express his views because they violate the narrative pushed by the corporate media is absurd. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalis...

driverdan 10y ago

I'm guessing there's more to it than the risk. Maybe it was in financial trouble, maybe the owner(s) wanted out anyway, maybe they were threatened directly or paid off, or maybe something else.

tracker1 10y ago

I'm curious if any of the reporters will continue their work for foreign news agencies under pseudonyms to protect their local identity.

wonderous 10y ago
Someone would rat them out, a source would be discovered and give them away, they'd out themselves for ego, make a fatal operational security error, etc.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

It's us, the USA, that is causing this paper to shutdown. The cartels are financed by the insatiable drug appetite of its close neighbor. Our inability and/or unwillingness to legalize recreational drugs is the feeding tube for these vicious groups.

2_listerine_pls 10y ago
It's surprisingly simple to locate the plantations using LIDAR + spectrometry. Even easier in Afghanistan, where fields are cultivated in the open. It's so well documented that the UNDOC provides an anual report with the amount in acres. I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>Insatiable drug appetite is a constant Says who?
  - callalex 10y ago
    The decades upon decades of failed abolishment efforts speak for themselves.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    So I'm by no means pro-drug, and I agree that most people who say "it's impossible to fix because we haven't fixed it yet" lack imagination, but there is absolutely some fishy stuff going on with drug policy. What we are doing now is broken, has been broken, and everyone knows it's broken. There are hidden motives here, no doubt. Corruption is a very real thing and there are a lot of people with a lot at stake regarding drug policy. The most important thing to successful drug prohibition and treatment is a semi-controllable grey market.
- jfim 10y ago
  > I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped. Except for that pesky sovereignty thing.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

wonderous 10y ago

Less than 1% of crimes are punished in Mexico: http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/mexico-impunity-levels-reach-99-study http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/mexico-impunity-leve...

seppin 10y ago
interesting. I wonder how that ranks against other lawless countries / regions
- mtgx 10y ago
  In stark contrast with Russia, where only 1% of those prosecuted don't go to prison: http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/russias-99-conviction-rate-thrown-into-question http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/russias-99-convi...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

brooklynmarket 10y ago

Can someone explain to me, what would happen if Mexico tomorrow, all drugs were legal like Portugal? Could it get any worse. Portugal seems to doing just fine.

3131s 10y ago
Just to clarify, drugs are not legal in Portugal. There is decriminalization on small amounts, but not full legalization. However, Portugal's experiment is a resounding success and I'd expect even greater benefits from legalization (e.g. tax money derived from the industry around recreational drugs).
- nakedrobot2 10y ago
  Well yes but this is a nitpick in my opinion. Drug possession in personal amounts is not a criminal offense. So they are no longer "super illegal" you could say. It's in the same category as a driving offense or something like that. Same in Czech Republic.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    It's not a nitpick at all. Without legalization there is no tax money from sales of recreational drugs, and the black market still exists to collect that profit instead. Decriminalization also does not fix problems like contamination of drugs, mislabeling, or inconsistent dosage, whereas legalization would. Decriminalization is better than nothing but actually misses out on most of the benefits.
sdlion 10y ago
There is work towards that end in Mexico. A selected few got a Supreme Court ruling that supports the legal use and growth of marijuana for personal use [1]. It didn't make it legal, but it sets precedence and a framework to keep the wheel moving to eventually make it legal like in other countries. Through this very same process last year the whole country make it same-sex marriage legal. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/world/americas/mexico-supreme-court-marijuana-ruling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/world/americas/mexico-sup...

douche 10y ago

The entire Spanish new world has been a failed state for the past 300 years. Peruvian and Mexican metals kept them viable for a while, but that ran out long ago. Coke has barely filled the void, thanks to US prohibition.

Findeton 10y ago
Chile, Panama, Argentina are pretty good in comparison to many other countries. Also if you take into account the last 300 years, well... not only Argentina was richer than the USA 100 years ago but Venezuela (yes, Venezuela) was in better economic shape than, for example Spain, for decades during the XX century.
- douche 10y ago
  There's no way that Argentina was richer than the US in 1917, when American manufacturers and bankers were busily sucking up the wealth of the Entente powers by supplying war materiel and loans. Not even ten years ago, Venezuela was the darling of the NY Times, among others, under Chavez. Of course, gasoline was close to $4 a gallon then.
- douche 10y ago
  Also, Panama would still be a malarial pesthole without the Canal. Reading up on the various canal schemes in different regions of that era and the French and then American efforts to build the Canal is very interesting.
tim333 10y ago
Columbia has done a pretty good turn around from Mexican style violence to peaceful.
- Findeton 10y ago
  I think you mean Colombia, not Columbia :)
  - 10y ago

known 10y ago

Why not give guns to journalists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_owner...

tim333 10y ago
Not sure how that's supposed to help. If some sniper shoots you it doesn't make much difference if you were carrying a gun or not.

tempodox 10y ago

Stopping the flow of money to the cartels would require the U.S. and others to legalize drugs and make the prices plummet. Is the upkeep of hypocrisy and the DEA really worth any amount of murder and corruption?

sparrish 10y ago
Legalizing wouldn't stop the flow. You think they'd just throw up their arms and walk away? Cartels would just lower their prices and keep pushing to existing addicts and creating addicts. Once the price is driven down, how are 'legal' drug manufacturers expected to compete on price with taxes, licensing, overhead? Legalizing won't stop blackmarket drugs, it will only increase it like in Colorado. http://kdvr.com/2017/03/03/black-market-marijuana-business-booming/ http://kdvr.com/2017/03/03/black-market-marijuana-business-b...

netmask 10y ago

well actually the "El Norte" news paper was about to close much before that the journalist was murdered, the thing is that specific newspaper was in a thigh relation with the ex chihuahua governor( now fugitive ) Cesar Duarte, the owners of the newspaper takes this tragic to get some political tax against the new governor from the oposition Javier corral

Andredi4Real 10y ago

Mexico can be super dangerous. But it is a beautiful country with so much to offer. If you go to the right places though it is very safe.

Pica_soO 10y ago

I wish there was some mafia approach to rebuild a civil state. This is our house, our block, our town, we avoid interacting with people who support the corrupt government and we do not interact with Narcosi. Just shut out all strangers, isolate people who pose a long term thread to your community. Shun the restaurant, where the cops eat, walk your dog to where the drug dealers are. Create small economy's, which do not bribe, do not interact with drug money, do not sell to gang-members and "public" officials. Have a cell-structured civil service with a anonymously voted for or against major.

kakarot 10y ago
Walk our dogs to the dealer's house but not touch drug money? Could you clarify this seeming contradiction?
- Pica_soO 10y ago
  It was a lame example for civil dis-obedience. You let your dog shit where the drug-deals go down. Have a farmer spray the whole parking lot with merde. Primitive, not over the violence threshold, and yet, unpleasant. Sorry, its really tough to come up with something that would deter, but not escalate.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    Why would you purposefully spread feces next to drug dealers? What has this demographic of society that is largely born of economic desperation done to be condemned by us so?
saganus 10y ago
There are certain efforts with a somewhat similar idea behind them, called "auto defensas" meaning "self-defense (civilian) forces". Basically people in towns ravaged by narcos got fed up with it and started defending themselves because they couldn't trust the local/federal authorities to defend them anymore. A very brave thing to do if you ask me. However... the sad part is that, on the one hand, fighting an armed group with so much man- and fire-power as the different cartel groups have, it's very hard. Especially because a lot of these narco armed forces have actual military training and even when not, they are so ruthless and savage that it's hard to fight back. The sheer amount of terror these groups can inflict is staggering. Some of these towns that chose to defend themselves were some time later attacked by huge convoys of 100+ attackers armed with grenade launchers, automatic weapons, frigging M60s and even heavier ones (some groups have anti-air guns strapped to the back of their trucks)... and most importantly, these attackers were ready to kill on sight, whereas the townspeople were armed with hunting rifles and some handguns and definitely not with the same blood lust and ability (or even the nerve) to kill people. Lots of these towns are now deserted because people had to fled to the surrounding areas after such violent payback attacks. And to top it all off, if you at least had the government NOT intervene either way... well, you could maybe stand your ground for some time. The problem is that in most of these places the government authorities where actually against having armed civilian forces (and in some cases even in cohoots with the narcos), so they would have to fight both against armed forces AND against government propaganda ("these are not self-defense forces, they are just another narco group taking hold of the town") plastered all over the country in major newspapers and tv stations (which de-legitimizes those self-defense forces that are actually trying to, you know, defend themselves), while at the same time local and federal forces trying to dis-arm them. It's a really complicated problem for which I definitely have no idea how to solve. Just imagine having to stand up and defend your town against a military force that, by some estimations, could reach upwards of 15,000 armed men... in one cartel alone. What can a town with a total population of...what... 3,000? 10,000 people? do against a heavily armed and trained para-military force? And to be clear, those people that did try to defend themselves have my utmost respect. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of desperation you need to be in to try to fight back to such a powerful and horrific group of people. But in the end it's heartbreaking to see them defend themselves to just later have them be wiped out or threatened with so much torture and terror that it boggles the mind. A lot of these self-defense forces held up for maybe 2 or 3 years and are now either bought and influenced by some competing narco group or just terrorized out of their towns forever (at least that's what little info I could gather over the years of reading different news sources, both official and otherwise. Not really sure how much of that is real or not since I don't live in any of these towns). It just doesn't seem... feasible. Maybe I'm a defeatist saying these things... but holy shit, you just have to listen to what someone like Dr. Mireles [1] had to say to get a tiny part of the terrible picture here. The problem is much much bigger than people can imagine... and I'm not even in the front line here. I'm just some city dude "far" away (as much as "far away" can one be while living here in this country) from these realities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Mireles_Valverde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Mireles_Valve...

khanbalam 10y ago

I am from Mexico and live in Mexico City. To clarify a little bit, the newspaper is from a northern state. And yes, things in the northern states are rather violent and dangerous. But to be honest the really bad state is the one close to the capital, Estado de México which has many violent crime, crime against women, etc. We even joke that is like Mad Max fury road. Yes that bad. Yet people go to work, to school and carry on. As everything there are many sides and conflicting interests. Yet violence and crime are just one more bad thing to worry, being traffic and low income being other stuff you have to take into consideration. As tourists you could always go to many other places instead of Ciudad Juárez or Tijuana since those two have become cities for degenerate people from other countries to abuse and commit atrocities and get away with it for the only reason that they have the dollars.

saganus 10y ago
"But to be honest the really bad state is the one close to the capital". Not even close. A couple of years ago on a SINGLE year there were some 5 or 6 narco-blockades in Guadalajara for example (that's one every few months and we are talking 25 to 35 buses lit on fire in the middle of the day, across major streets that prevent people from entering or leaving the city for several hours, on each blockade event, all around the city at the same time, which btw shows how coordinated these criminal groups are). Have you personally been there? It's really not a nice sight and it's frightening as shit. Especially when they happen so frequently that at some point you just have to ignore it to be able to carry on with your life? Have you been to Xalapa, the capital of Veracruz? where armed people dressed as Federal Forces kidnap people with impunity? Have you had to move around in the city in daylight and watch how military convoys armed to the teeth go around patrolling the streets instead of the Police (mind you this is a town that has a population of less than 1M, i.e. it's more of a town than a big city so people are not used to military presence)? Have you been to Veracruz city where the Navy had to literally disarm the local police and take control of police duties for a few months? how about getting stopped by a military checkpoint in the middle of the city? especially after watching in the news how many times military personnel at those same checkpoints fired upon (and killed) entire families because they felt threatened? Have you ever talked to someone that got arrested AND tortured by the police because they thought (incorrectly) that the guy was a member of the cartel? and then seeing this person suffer permanent hearing loss on one side because of how many times his captors slammed his ear against the wall repeatedly for hours at a time? I've personally lived all these things and let me tell you, "the really bad state is the one close to the capital" is not true at all. Not sure if it's the news not reporting these things, or maybe there's so much shit going on in EdoMex (which I know it's not really a peaceful place) that there's simply no more room for bad news from other parts of the country, but you can definitely find much worse in other states. Let's not even talk about Guerrero, where I have friends that witnessed headless bodies being dumped on the road... and then having some shady car follow them to their home because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sorry for being so crude... Mexico is a wonderful country full of great things and I love it. But crazy, crazy shit does happen outside of the capital and EdoMex, and while it's definitely not something that happens everyday, it's always a constant fear in the back of your head... "what if they kidnap MY family because their business was successful enough to stand up?", "what if my girlfriend goes out tonight to some bar that happens to have fucking military-grade grenades thrown at because some random cartel dude wanted to celebrate that same night at that same place?"

wolfkill 10y ago

My wife is from a small town in Mexico where there has been a recent surge in violence and kidnappings. Her family is there and we go visit once a year or so as we can. Last time I was there there was a couple of moments that made realize I was just waiting for something terrible to happen. I worry I (as the American) am painting a target on my wife's family. Every time they call unexpectedly I fear for the worst. Right now, I'm not sure if we will go this year.

lucain 10y ago

I'm native from cd Juarez and I have a friend who is a journalist photographer and I'm sorry to tell you guys that even indeed free and critical journalism is on constant jeopardy because of the drug cartels and the corrupt government this journal didn't closed because it was to dangerous to do so. My friend told me that it closed because it was not profitable anymore. The facebook rant about it: https://www.facebook.com/sugeyry/posts/10154385439001931?pnref=story https://www.facebook.com/sugeyry/posts/10154385439001931?pnr... Keep in mind that this is a journalist talking about a decision made the by owner of the paper a while ago, the original decision haves nothing to do with the death of Miroslava Breach or with some pressure of drug gangs. This paper was under the payroll of the late government now followed for corruption and money laundry (Cesar Duarte former governor is hidden at El Paso at this moment). And the "it is too dangerous to continue" is more a political cry out than any other thing. Yes: times are still hard at Juarez, journalism is still a high risk job. But this is not a statement.