¿Están las redes sociales protegidas bajo la libertad de expresión y la libertad de prensa?

This may be one of the most frightening events that's threatened free speech and the free press in this country. The Senate has passed a ley de protección de medios que definió el periodismo y donde la única clase protegida de periodistas son los involucrados en actividades legítimas de recopilación de noticias.

Desde una vista de 10,000 pies, el proyecto de ley parece una gran idea. El LA Times incluso lo llama un "Proyecto de ley para proteger a los periodistas". El problema es el lenguaje subyacente que permite al gobierno definir qué periodista es, quien un periodista es, o que recopilación legítima de noticias .

Here's my take. Citizen journalism is applying insurmountable pressure on our government that's exposing a ton of issues. Of course there's bi-partisan support to redefine and narrow the scope of who or what a journalism is. Anyone threatening to expose government problems may lose their protections of the press under our Constitution. All politicians would love that… it means they could apply government forces to threaten and intimidate those they disagree with.

Si estás de acuerdo con Edward Snowden or not, the information he released informed the public and caused outrage of the programs where the NSA was spying on us. This bill doesn't impact the legalities of what Snowden did. Frighteningly, it could impact whether or not the journalist who released it was legitimate, though, had he been an American citizen. Was releasing classified materials recopilación legítima de noticias?

Entre 1972 y 1976, Bob Woodward y Carl Bernstein emergieron como dos de los periodistas más famosos de Estados Unidos y se identificaron para siempre como los reporteros que rompieron Watergate, la historia más importante de la política estadounidense. Gran parte de la información que se les proporcionó se logró a través de un informante dentro de la Casa Blanca. Era que recopilación legítima de noticias?

Perhaps Republicans in power could state that MSNBC is not legitimate. Perhaps Democrats in power could state Fox News isn't legitimate. What if one journalist exposes a huge government scandal through recopilación de noticias menos que legítima? ¿Puede ser encarcelado y enterrado el escándalo? Estos son solo los problemas de los medios tradicionales. Se pone peor cuando piensa en Internet y si escribir un artículo en una Wiki está protegido (es posible que no se le clasifique como bloguero o periodista).

What about when you start a Facebook page to oppose or support a topic. You spend a ton of time curating information the internet, sharing it on your Facebook page, growing an audience and building a community. Are you a journalist? Is your Facebook page protected? Did you gather the information you shared legitimately? Or… could you get sued by the opposition, the community shut down, and even get locked up because you're not protected under the Government's definición.

Con las redes sociales y la web digital, prácticamente todas las personas que participan recopilan y comparten noticias. Todos deberíamos estar protegidos.

Cuando se escribió la Constitución, cualquier persona promedio en la calle que pudiera pedir prestada o pagar una imprenta era una periodista. If you go back and review some of the single page papers that were printed back then, they were atrocious. Politicians were smeared with absolute lies to misrepresent them to the public in order to bury their political aspirations. Being a journalist didn't require a degree… you didn't even have to spell or use proper grammar! And news organizations didn't appear until decades later as newspapers began to buy up the smaller circulations. This led to the news media moguls we have today.

Los primeros periodistas eran en gran medida ciudadanos que hacían correr la voz. Había cero legitimidad to who they targeted, how they acquired the information, or where they published it. And yet… our leaders of our country… who were often the target of these attacks… chose to protect the rights of free speech and journalism. They chose, intentionally, not to define what the press was, how news was gathered, or by whom.

Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con Matt Drudge on this, who's Informe de Drudge probably wouldn't be protected under this bill. This is a scary bill that borders on fascism, if not opening the door for it.

2 Comentarios

  1. 1

    Doug: solo un aviso, tenía un problema al usar mi extensión de búfer (no encontraba una URL) y no podía usar Google+ en tu barra para compartir porque estaba "abajo" en la página y no podía desplazarme . Flare siendo funky.

  2. 2

¿Qué piensas?

Este sitio usa Akismet para reducir el correo no deseado. Descubra cómo se procesan los datos de sus comentarios.