3 ms·

That's an interesting idea but "freedom of press" is a relatively new right by historical standards and is not widely accepted even now because it's counter to

That's an interesting idea but "freedom of press" is a relatively new right by historical standards and is not widely accepted even now because it's counter to many governments' interests. The very concept is based in "Natural Law" (stemming from Aristotle, Roman tradition, etc) so not universal. Therefore, the argument would be that it's not a "human right" but mostly a "Western right" I'd bet on it getting worse from here.

pm90 6y ago
> That's an interesting idea but "freedom of press" is a relatively new right by historical standards Literally the first amendment (1789): > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- 1cvmask 6y ago
  There is no freedom of speech according to the Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_%2776_(1917_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_%2776_(1917_film...
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I have no clue why this would be downvoted. The Supreme Court upheld the decision to jail someone for ten years for making an anti-war speech, based on the Espionage Act, which is the ancestor of the act that prevents Snowden from receiving a fair trial. According to the article, Debs' sentence was upheld because it was found that the intent of his message was prevent the war. By the way, the activist that was sentenced to ten years in jail for arguing against war also got a million votes for the presidency, so this is a case of supression of political candidates because of their speech and political activity. If you disagree, instead of just downvoting factual statements you disagree with, you should comment to correct them or state why they are in bad form.
    - staybailey 6y ago
      Presumably the lack of any contextualizing verbage. Like zero effort to connect the evidence presented with the assertion. Notably the evidence presented has plain gaps. Consider the second link: "Goldstein's attorneys were unable to argue for protection under the First Amendment because the Supreme Court had ruled in 1915 that movies lacked such protection. (That ruling was overturned in 1952.)" That final parenthetical is critical because it suggests that a modern court would not rule the same way the court did in 1915 given similar facts. To be clear, I don't have enough context to evaluate the merits of the statement in full just noting why it may have come across as glib and hence downvoted.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        If you completely disregard the first link, then this conclusion does make sense, but the That said, yeah I'd agree that there wasn't a lot of effort, but the first link reealllyyyyyyy speaks for itself here.

pm90 6y ago

> That's an interesting idea but "freedom of press" is a relatively new right by historical standards Literally the first amendment (1789): > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1cvmask 6y ago
There is no freedom of speech according to the Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_%2776_(1917_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_%2776_(1917_film...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I have no clue why this would be downvoted. The Supreme Court upheld the decision to jail someone for ten years for making an anti-war speech, based on the Espionage Act, which is the ancestor of the act that prevents Snowden from receiving a fair trial. According to the article, Debs' sentence was upheld because it was found that the intent of his message was prevent the war. By the way, the activist that was sentenced to ten years in jail for arguing against war also got a million votes for the presidency, so this is a case of supression of political candidates because of their speech and political activity. If you disagree, instead of just downvoting factual statements you disagree with, you should comment to correct them or state why they are in bad form.
  - staybailey 6y ago
    Presumably the lack of any contextualizing verbage. Like zero effort to connect the evidence presented with the assertion. Notably the evidence presented has plain gaps. Consider the second link: "Goldstein's attorneys were unable to argue for protection under the First Amendment because the Supreme Court had ruled in 1915 that movies lacked such protection. (That ruling was overturned in 1952.)" That final parenthetical is critical because it suggests that a modern court would not rule the same way the court did in 1915 given similar facts. To be clear, I don't have enough context to evaluate the merits of the statement in full just noting why it may have come across as glib and hence downvoted.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      If you completely disregard the first link, then this conclusion does make sense, but the That said, yeah I'd agree that there wasn't a lot of effort, but the first link reealllyyyyyyy speaks for itself here.