10 ms·

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) .. vowed his administration would seek to prosecute and investigate .. anyone who aided the publication in its "attempt to embarra

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) .. vowed his administration would seek to prosecute and investigate .. anyone who aided the publication in its "attempt to embarrass the state and sell headlines for their news outlet." Embarrassing governments is the natural outcome of the press doing it's job. This is what the extra constitutional protections are for.

silexia 5y ago
This governor needs to face a recall election or civil lawsuits for this idiotic threats and lies.
- rumblestrut 5y ago
  We don’t do recall elections in Missouri. Also, sorry about Governor Hee Haw. We know he’s an embarrassment.
_3u10 5y ago
There’s no extra constitutional protections. It’s all under free speech. Everyone is equal.
- mmcdermott 5y ago
  x1000 this. The freedom of the press is a right granted to all citizenry of the United States, not a specialized permission granted to an elite caste.
  - Retric 5y ago
    The freedom of the press isn’t about cast, but it is about context. For example based on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire it’s constitutional to prohibit “fighting words.” Which would mean some things are fine in print but you can’t say to someone’s face because they would provoke violence.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      Really appreciate this example.
- lkrubner 5y ago
  It was added as an amendment, therefore it is an extra constitutional protection. Some people (a broad coalition that included both Federalists and anti-Federalists) were concerned that the Constitution, as originally written, did not ensure a protection of human rights. That's why they pushed through the Bill Of Rights.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- elliekelly 5y ago
  But he’s not speaking in his capacity as the individual and citizen Michael Parson. He’s speaking in his capacity as Governor Michael Parson. We know this because he’s threatening to use his governing powers to employ government resources. Whether state actors have a right to free speech is not, as I understand it, a settled matter of law.
jrs235 5y ago
This is why my outlook on the future is growing dim. Politicians are threatening revenge, using the power and purse of the state, against people who embarrass them.
- vipa123 5y ago
  This is as old as the country itself, the constitution is stronger than these thugs.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    The US state has successfully suppressed free expression in a number of instances (Henry Miller and Wilhelm Reich come to mind). The US isn't special as a democracy and it's been pretty shoddy at quite a number of times, though now isn't necessarily the worst moment. The constitution is only strong on free speech and freedom of the press if people defend it. Edit: It's especially notable that the degree that governments in the US are run as personal fief where officials lash out at anyone who inconveniences them (as is happening here), is strongly related to how far the government is from urban centers.
    - et1337 5y ago
      I live in LA and its full of personal fiefdoms. I think you just see more talent at obfuscating it.
    - elliekelly 5y ago
      Your edit reminds me of an absolutely insane article I read a few days ago about an elected Juvenile Court Judge in Tennessee: https://www.propublica.org/article/black-children-were-jailed-for-a-crime-that-doesnt-exist https://www.propublica.org/article/black-children-were-jaile...
    - speedybird 5y ago
      > though now isn't necessarily the worst moment. Chattel slavery, the Civil War, the Trail of Tears, the internment of Japanese Americans... need I go on? Anybody who thinks America might be in a worse state now than ever before needs a serious reality check.
kizer 5y ago
Exactly. Thank you nosy media. This anti-press stuff started with Trump. Terrifying how authoritarian the right has become. Reporters, please continue “embarrassing” all states. The sane leaders and citizens will be thanking you.
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  > This anti-press stuff started with Trump. * gestures vaguely in the direction of Richard Nixon, waits for historians to chime in with earlier examples.
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    I'll leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#Colonial_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    If ‘kizer had said “was extremely increased” by Trump it would be an accurate statement. It’s frankly one of the planks of the shadow platform of the Trump Republican Party that journalists are enemies.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Trump literally called the press the enemy of the people. Traditionally, that's the sort of rhetoric a leader uses when they're about to send out the hit squads.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      Everyone is kind of right here. I'd phrase it this way. R administrations expand the attacks on journalists (and everyone who exposes Gov wrongdoing) that were done by previous D administrations. Trump's method to reduce accountability was to nurture animosity specifically against journalism. Behind the scenes, his admin's revenge on whistleblowers carried on pretty much the same as his predecessors. My long position is that US press coverage has been continually (but not exclusively) deferential to authoritarianism. We see that US coverage of unconstitutional executive domestic actions is often nonexistent, until whistleblowers drag news orgs into doing their jobs (Mark Klein's evidence of NSA+AT&T collusion wasn't enough to overcome the giant press yawn. Snowden's mountain of evidence was impossible to ignore.) The US press is somewhat better at covering the misdeeds of R administrations than of D administrations (eg: US coverage of Holder's efforts to target journalists was muted, at best.) The difference is primarily a matter of competence. We've proven repeatedly that focusing on bias instead of ineptitude just leads to the 'view from nowhere'.
tshaddox 5y ago
And suppressing opposition is the natural outcome of the government doing its job. The problem isn’t whether one group or another is “doing its natural job.” The problem is that what the reporter is doing is good, and what the government is doing is bad.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  "And suppressing opposition is the natural outcome of the government doing its job. " - no it isn't. It's the natural outcome of shitty people being elected. The JD isn't "jackboots on necks" or whatever.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    > no it isn't. It's the natural outcome of shitty people being elected. Okay, well it's the outcome of literally every government of non-trivial size and duration.
    - idiotsecant 5y ago
      Your original intention, I believe, was to comment on the natural tendency of the system we've put in place. The phrasing "doing their job" has a slightly different implication, I think, of a system doing what it's "supposed" to do and not what it actually does.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Then the question is who is doing the "supposing"? I'd say if every government I've ever seen or heard of routinely engages in suppression of opposition, I'm going to suppose that the next government I encounter will as well. It's not like these are random government employees doing the suppression unprompted: they are in roles expressly intended to suppress opposition.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
rsynnott 5y ago
> attempt to embarrass the state I hadn't realised the US had kept lèse-majesté when it broke with the UK (even in the UK, the last prosecution was in 1715, so this is particularly retro of his governorship...)

silexia 5y ago

This governor needs to face a recall election or civil lawsuits for this idiotic threats and lies.

rumblestrut 5y ago
We don’t do recall elections in Missouri. Also, sorry about Governor Hee Haw. We know he’s an embarrassment.

_3u10 5y ago

There’s no extra constitutional protections. It’s all under free speech. Everyone is equal.

mmcdermott 5y ago
x1000 this. The freedom of the press is a right granted to all citizenry of the United States, not a specialized permission granted to an elite caste.
- Retric 5y ago
  The freedom of the press isn’t about cast, but it is about context. For example based on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire it’s constitutional to prohibit “fighting words.” Which would mean some things are fine in print but you can’t say to someone’s face because they would provoke violence.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    Really appreciate this example.
lkrubner 5y ago
It was added as an amendment, therefore it is an extra constitutional protection. Some people (a broad coalition that included both Federalists and anti-Federalists) were concerned that the Constitution, as originally written, did not ensure a protection of human rights. That's why they pushed through the Bill Of Rights.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
elliekelly 5y ago
But he’s not speaking in his capacity as the individual and citizen Michael Parson. He’s speaking in his capacity as Governor Michael Parson. We know this because he’s threatening to use his governing powers to employ government resources. Whether state actors have a right to free speech is not, as I understand it, a settled matter of law.

jrs235 5y ago

This is why my outlook on the future is growing dim. Politicians are threatening revenge, using the power and purse of the state, against people who embarrass them.

vipa123 5y ago
This is as old as the country itself, the constitution is stronger than these thugs.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  The US state has successfully suppressed free expression in a number of instances (Henry Miller and Wilhelm Reich come to mind). The US isn't special as a democracy and it's been pretty shoddy at quite a number of times, though now isn't necessarily the worst moment. The constitution is only strong on free speech and freedom of the press if people defend it. Edit: It's especially notable that the degree that governments in the US are run as personal fief where officials lash out at anyone who inconveniences them (as is happening here), is strongly related to how far the government is from urban centers.
  - et1337 5y ago
    I live in LA and its full of personal fiefdoms. I think you just see more talent at obfuscating it.
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    Your edit reminds me of an absolutely insane article I read a few days ago about an elected Juvenile Court Judge in Tennessee: https://www.propublica.org/article/black-children-were-jailed-for-a-crime-that-doesnt-exist https://www.propublica.org/article/black-children-were-jaile...
  - speedybird 5y ago
    > though now isn't necessarily the worst moment. Chattel slavery, the Civil War, the Trail of Tears, the internment of Japanese Americans... need I go on? Anybody who thinks America might be in a worse state now than ever before needs a serious reality check.

kizer 5y ago

Exactly. Thank you nosy media. This anti-press stuff started with Trump. Terrifying how authoritarian the right has become. Reporters, please continue “embarrassing” all states. The sane leaders and citizens will be thanking you.

NoGravitas 5y ago
> This anti-press stuff started with Trump. * gestures vaguely in the direction of Richard Nixon, waits for historians to chime in with earlier examples.
- nostrademons 5y ago
  I'll leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#Colonial_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  If ‘kizer had said “was extremely increased” by Trump it would be an accurate statement. It’s frankly one of the planks of the shadow platform of the Trump Republican Party that journalists are enemies.
- krapp 5y ago
  Trump literally called the press the enemy of the people. Traditionally, that's the sort of rhetoric a leader uses when they're about to send out the hit squads.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    Everyone is kind of right here. I'd phrase it this way. R administrations expand the attacks on journalists (and everyone who exposes Gov wrongdoing) that were done by previous D administrations. Trump's method to reduce accountability was to nurture animosity specifically against journalism. Behind the scenes, his admin's revenge on whistleblowers carried on pretty much the same as his predecessors. My long position is that US press coverage has been continually (but not exclusively) deferential to authoritarianism. We see that US coverage of unconstitutional executive domestic actions is often nonexistent, until whistleblowers drag news orgs into doing their jobs (Mark Klein's evidence of NSA+AT&T collusion wasn't enough to overcome the giant press yawn. Snowden's mountain of evidence was impossible to ignore.) The US press is somewhat better at covering the misdeeds of R administrations than of D administrations (eg: US coverage of Holder's efforts to target journalists was muted, at best.) The difference is primarily a matter of competence. We've proven repeatedly that focusing on bias instead of ineptitude just leads to the 'view from nowhere'.

tshaddox 5y ago

And suppressing opposition is the natural outcome of the government doing its job. The problem isn’t whether one group or another is “doing its natural job.” The problem is that what the reporter is doing is good, and what the government is doing is bad.

lostcolony 5y ago
"And suppressing opposition is the natural outcome of the government doing its job. " - no it isn't. It's the natural outcome of shitty people being elected. The JD isn't "jackboots on necks" or whatever.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > no it isn't. It's the natural outcome of shitty people being elected. Okay, well it's the outcome of literally every government of non-trivial size and duration.
  - idiotsecant 5y ago
    Your original intention, I believe, was to comment on the natural tendency of the system we've put in place. The phrasing "doing their job" has a slightly different implication, I think, of a system doing what it's "supposed" to do and not what it actually does.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Then the question is who is doing the "supposing"? I'd say if every government I've ever seen or heard of routinely engages in suppression of opposition, I'm going to suppose that the next government I encounter will as well. It's not like these are random government employees doing the suppression unprompted: they are in roles expressly intended to suppress opposition.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

rsynnott 5y ago

> attempt to embarrass the state I hadn't realised the US had kept lèse-majesté when it broke with the UK (even in the UK, the last prosecution was in 1715, so this is particularly retro of his governorship...)