8 ms·

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...

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...