3 ms·
You're arguing that journalists deserve to be physically threatened for their speech (whether it be fact or opinion). Doesn't that open the door for anyone to
by smt88 5y ago
You're arguing that journalists deserve to be physically threatened for their speech (whether it be fact or opinion).
Doesn't that open the door for anyone to attack anyone else for their speech? Why would you want to live in a society like that?
- natmaka 5y agoIsn't it another case of asymmetric warfare? People infuriated by a journalist's lie/misrepresentation (either actively or by omission) cannot counter it on-the-spot (how could they address material printed or broadcasted by mass-media?) and think that they can only aim at the source. Without any live report the journalist's comments are less convincing. Also: some consider journalists are representatives/relays of the powers-that-be.
- readflaggedcomm 5y agoThe GP commenter may believe so, but their argument was that people may believe journalists deserve retaliation, not that this is correct or just. And that journalists claiming to be victims of may exaggerate the danger they're in, in the first place. Which describes WP's bullet list.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago>Doesn't that open the door for anyone to attack anyone else for their speech? I personally don't think anyone should be attacked for their speech but isn't the current prevailing ideology that "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences". So it seems to me we already live in a society like that.