| | Hello..it's my first post. Everybody, say "Aww...ain't that cute." My first toe dip in the turbulent waters of Objectivist discussion.
I can't say I'm surprised to read the referenced report. As an editor, parents (mostly of criminals), politicians and bureaucrats constantly barrage me with the mantra "You can't print that!" I love hearing this because it gives me the opportunity to gently deliver my standard Freedom of the Press speech, which touches on individual rights, the Constitution, and the little understood world of public records/open meetings.
Nothing raises the hackles of a journalist quicker than being told we can cannot print/broadcast something.
It's always a pleasure to explain that, yes, we can print "that" (whatever it may be) if we want and that we will also bear any legal consequences that arise after the fact. Our tort system trumps the hell out of prior restraint as the best option to redress any damage that may arise from irresponsible journalism.
If I want to be especially combative, I could say, "Let me see it" to those who say "you can't print that."
"See what?," they might indignantly reply.
"Your title deed to our press equipment," the smart-aleck media hack retorts.
"I don't have one," the flustered would-be censor admits.
"End of conversation," I might return. No, I'm generally not that nasty.
I can't claim to have converted everyone when delivering my Freedom of the Press spiel and I'm still somewhat shocked to experience the public's utter ignorance about their basic civil liberties.
This news article only confirms my belief that the general populace will continue to trade away their liberties for the illusion of security.
|
|
