8 ms·

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

by 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.
      - duncan_bayne 10y ago
        You seem fairly free with your criticism of American free speech, considering _they_ didn't birth Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin.
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.

by Banthum 10y ago

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.
    - duncan_bayne 10y ago
      You seem fairly free with your criticism of American free speech, considering _they_ didn't birth Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin.

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.