. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Friday, December 29, 2006
Waaaah

I've talked about reporters' desires for special rights before. If they want to come up with a coherent argument, they should insist that no individual, reporter or not, should have to respond to a subpoena for any reason, and then I'd be happy to hop on the bandwagon. Until then, however, while they continue to insist that they are special and should not have the same obligations as the rest of us, I'll continue to recommend a collective "fuck you" to them and laugh every time one of them gets hauled off to jail.

The argument that "Our job is really really important, and we wouldn't be able to do it without using and covering for criminals" is a fascinating one, but I feel strangely unmoved. Would they also support kidnappings and beatings in order to get valuable information for the public? Without them, we may never hear about these important stories. The rules of criminal behavior should thus be suspended for such actions, right?

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 12/29/2006 10:17:00 AM #
Comments (2)
. . .
Comments:
The fact that "freedom of the press" is separate from "freedom of speech" in the first amendment implies that "the press" is a classification in its own right. I do think this is legitimate, and I think it comes down to public interest and the public's right to know. Of course, we shouldn't be so deluded into thinking that the press and the public are one and the same, or that one's interests are a subset of the other's, but in cases where the government is imposing on the press on issues relating to state secrets or anything else of public concern, I think extra protections should be provided.

I don't think it is pragmatic to assume that these identical protections can be extended to everybody who is not acting as a journalist--bloggers supposedly have journalist's rights. But, for example, look at the case of Firas Hatoum in Lebanon who went into an apartment that was once considered a scene of investigation with camera crew and all to create a segment about it. It's pretty clear that Hatoum did not go in with malicious intent, or with the intent to steal, vandalize, etc--but if a private individual with no legitimate journalistic reason for being there were to enter, what stops that person from abusing the "I was investigating on behalf of the public" line? There is a clear line, I think, and if private individuals suddenly have these same protections (they are quite extensive!) then this could open the door to vigilantism.
 
The problem with this line of thinking is that it grants the government, of all entities, the authority to determine who is and is not press, which itself implicates "freedom of the press" to a far greater extent than granting special rights to press folks (which implicates equal protection). To me, the primary concern with freedom of the press is guarding against government censorship, not making the job of journalists easier. So while selective enforcement of certain laws against journalists only would be a problem, I don't see the same problem in demanding that journalists have the same rights and obligations as the rest of us.
 
Post a Comment


. . .