112
The Judges Who Ruled Against La Gordiloca Are Criminalizing Watchdog Journalism
(www.texasobserver.org)
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
112 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19163 readers
3165 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the Supreme Court allows this to stand, freedom of the press would instantly become nonexistent. That is not hyperbole. The court would be essentially telling the press that they are only allowed to share what the government has decided they could share, and attempting to report anything else would leave them open to criminal prosecution and no legal recourse against law enforcement and government overreach.
Even if no explicit threat is made, would you, as a journalist, be willing to put your career, your freedom, and your family security on the line to report something that didn't come from official government sources? Would you want to report on something regarding a government official who could literally decide whether you remain a free person? Would you literally want to take on even a state government on your own? Because that is what every journalist would have to decide any time they report on something that didn't come from an official government source. Anything else would subject them to retribution from government officials who would use the fact that they got the information from an informant during dinner at Applebees rather than the corrupt officials they were investigating in the first place as evidence of a crime.
And even under the "current" rules regarding this ruling as it stands, what is to stop Texas (or any of the other affected states) from having someone like Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper arrested for reporting on something on CNN or MSNBC? What would stop a future President Trump from using this ruling as justification for the dismantling of the press that he has already promised he would try to do?
And what I'm afraid of is that one of the basic foundations of our country -- freedom of the press -- is now in the hands of six people who have already gone on record saying they want to dismantle the basic foundations of our country. Pardon me if that makes me just a wee bit nervous.
I sure do wish more people had seen this coming from a mile away in 2016 but here we are.
Edit to add some more context from the article
That's both horrifying and unsurprising. Unfortunately I think the voting public will have to experience authoritarianism to be motivated enough to do anything about it. And by then it likely will be too late.