3 ms·
The whole difficulty the senators are having seems to be how to define "journalist" in such a way as to exclude people associated with WikiLeaks, which, whateve
by atlantic 13y ago
The whole difficulty the senators are having seems to be how to define "journalist" in such a way as to exclude people associated with WikiLeaks, which, whatever you think of it, is clearly a journalistic organization. Sounds like mission impossible.
- Hellenion 13y agoIt seems to me that some might actually believe that WikiLeaks are not reporters, even after failing to formulate differences. And even if this is accepted, WikiLeaks can probably find a way to "pay" a reporter that needs protection.
- Shivetya 13y agothey are defining whom will be allowed to speak out against the government. By using the term journalist they are attempting to circumvent the 1st Amendment, if not modify it, under the guise of "journalist are the press" and if your not a journalist you are not the press.
- bostik 13y agoThis quote, directly from the article, is indeed quite enlightening: "The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and we’ve ensured that" So basically, what they're saying: "There should be protection for journalists, unless we don't like what they're publishing." What's the name for a governmental body that passes favours for those who publish approved stories and suppresses stories that could embarrass those in power? Oh right... Ministery of Propaganda.