4 ms·
That's freedom of speech. To avoid making an incorrect assumption, and reading this in context with the rest of your post: are you saying it's "Freedom of spee
by dvtrn 6y ago
That's freedom of speech.
To avoid making an incorrect assumption, and reading this in context with the rest of your post: are you saying it's "Freedom of speech" if someone has a blog or "Freedom of speech" is having your identity revealed as the owner of said hypothetical blog?
Just trying to make sure if I've read and interpreted your comment the way you're wanting it to be consumed and understood by people reading it.
- dragonwriter 6y agoBoth publishing on your own blog and publishing true, not-legally-protected facts about someone who owns a blog are exercises of free speech. It's not either/or.
- dvtrn 6y agoI assumed that was the meaning, but I'm also trying to defer to authorial intent-a bit risk averse to assume with how hot this topic has been lately and all.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sandworm101 6y agoWhen you become a public figure, the press has the ability to come after you as a private person. That is the press exercising their freedom of speech. Many would say it is actually the duty of the press to investigate public figures and expose things like hypocrisy or conflicts of interest. Would anyone here argue that an elected official operating an "anonymous" twitter feed for political purposes should not be exposed? What if they are just running for office? What if they are just a backer/patron of a political party? At what point does the public's interest in honest communication on public issues give way to the privacy of an individual wanting to speak publicly?
- zepto 6y agoIf the press has a duty to expose conflicts of interest and hypocrisy they should investigate themselves. Let’s not kid ourselves. The press are political actors and nothing more. That isn’t necessarily avoidable in itself, but we get to decide what norms we expect them to follow.
- dvtrn 6y agoLet’s not kid ourselves. The press are political actors and nothing more. "The press" is made up of tens of thousands of people making individual choices (within their individual editorial requirements) about what to cover, how and with what inflection towards a given topic or trend, are they all political actors? I suppose if one takes "the person is political" calculus far enough, they might be. It's been my experience people tend to like the news sources they've self-selected as trustworthy and reliable, and complaints about "the media" are usually borne out of a specific gripe, not anything that can actually be provably shown as an accurate generalization of every single outlet that generates news content. This is not to attack or refute your position, this is just idle conjecture and pondering the topic.
- zepto 6y agopeople tend to like the news sources they've self-selected as trustworthy and reliable, and complaints about "the media" are usually borne out of a specific gripe, not anything that can actually be provably shown as an accurate generalization of every single outlet that generates news content I’d say this is just a reflection of people choosing outlets that reflect their views which is politics. No news organization is immune from this. That is my point. Pretending that news organizations are apolitical is the problem. Also, the press simply isn’t made up of tens of thousands of people making individual choices. It’s made up of people working for hierarchical corporations with owners whose direction they must follow in order to remain employed. You can certainly argue that the individuals are just doing their jobs and are not political actors per se, but they are definitely working towards the goals of politically driven organizations.