I haven’t yet seem anyone assert that the First Amendment should only apply to journalists. I occasionally see implications that members of accredited news organizations should enjoy immunity from prosecution for espionage, libel, etc. but that’s not quite the same thing. If you mean to imply that the existence of espionage laws is a clear violation of the First Amendment, you probably should state it explicitly, since that is not a commonly help proposition.
Or was this a deliberate illustration of the phenomenon the post was describing?
No one has explicitly said the First Amendment should apply only to journalists. But posing the question “Is X a journalist, and therefore protected by the First Amendment?” has that implication.
You should use DuckDuckGo instead of Google; I find that it gives better search results (which was surprising to me), and they don’t keep any records of your search history.
You should use Google instead of DuckDuckGo; I find that it gives better search results (which was unsurprising to me), and they keep searchable records of your search history.
whether assange qualifies as a journalist is/could be relevant because the first amendment specifically protects the freedom of the press.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”
ergo, if assange is a member of the press, it’s constitutionally harder to go after him than if not.
no one is saying that if he’s not a journalist, the separately-mentioned freedom of speech doesn’t apply to everyone else.
I haven’t yet seem anyone assert that the First Amendment should only apply to journalists. I occasionally see implications that members of accredited news organizations should enjoy immunity from prosecution for espionage, libel, etc. but that’s not quite the same thing. If you mean to imply that the existence of espionage laws is a clear violation of the First Amendment, you probably should state it explicitly, since that is not a commonly help proposition.
Or was this a deliberate illustration of the phenomenon the post was describing?
Use Google, and you’ll see many people asking whether Julian Assange is a reporter, and therefore protected under the first amendment. Such as “Why Julian Assange is a journalist—And why WikiLeaks is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as the New York Times ”. And you will also find people responding to the implied argument, like Reason magazine.
No one has explicitly said the First Amendment should apply only to journalists. But posing the question “Is X a journalist, and therefore protected by the First Amendment?” has that implication.
You should use DuckDuckGo instead of Google; I find that it gives better search results (which was surprising to me), and they don’t keep any records of your search history.
You should use Google instead of DuckDuckGo; I find that it gives better search results (which was unsurprising to me), and they keep searchable records of your search history.
whether assange qualifies as a journalist is/could be relevant because the first amendment specifically protects the freedom of the press. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”
ergo, if assange is a member of the press, it’s constitutionally harder to go after him than if not.
no one is saying that if he’s not a journalist, the separately-mentioned freedom of speech doesn’t apply to everyone else.