Congress Adds Bloggers To Press Protections

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:51 pm

Great .. except if Bush pondered bombing Aljazeera, who's safe anyway ...

[web]https://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/ ... rotections[/web]

major.tom · Post by **major.tom** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:22 am

I thought the Al Jazeera station in Bagdad was actually hit. There was a station in Afghanistan (Kandahar?) that was, I recall. But your point is still valid.

At least bloggers are now entitled to the same legal protections as mainstream journalists. Sounds like progress.

Post by **faceless** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:36 am

I've never felt the need for laws to tell me it's ok to say anything. I've paid the price for saying the wrong thing plenty of times right enough...

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:41 am

major.tom wrote:I thought the Al Jazeera station in Bagdad was actually hit. There was a station in Afghanistan (Kandahar?) that was, I recall.

Yep, above were in a war zone, and a number of press have been shot in war zones where the Americans claimed it wasn't deliberate {of-course, we believe them. they have never lied}.

I meant the leaked memo about Bush planning to bomb Aljazeera head office in Bahrain, a supposed ALLIED COUNTRY. I wonder if they would have said Iran (or Al-Qaeda) did it [or a stray Saddam missile, like the one which hit a Kuwait shopping center]

[web]https://www.socialistworker.co.uk/articl ... e_id=11266[/web]

They have been found guilty :

[web]https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nort ... 637735.stm[/web]

Post by **faceless** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:44 am

Mandy - what's that got to do with the topic? That's about the quickest agenda change in history!

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:11 am

faceless wrote:Mandy - what's that got to do with the topic? That's about the quickest agenda change in history!

Thanks

The original article was that bloggers should be protected (freedom of speech, 1st amendment), but then I said that even people like Al-Jazeera who should have this protection as journalists were targeted outside a war zone, and hence the report about the leaked memo and the trial, but if you just read the BBC report, you would have no idea the issue was about deliberately targeting Journalists outside a war zone because you don't like what they are reporting. What do we expect from the Bush & Blair Corporation.

On that analogy, anti-war bloggers could be "targeted", and the memo provides an insight into the morality of Bush.

luke · Post by **luke** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:23 am

wasn't aljazeera hit twice? in two different places? or was it only the once and the other one was just talked about?

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:30 am

luke wrote:wasn't aljazeera hit twice? in two different places? or was it only the once and the other one was just talked about?

From memory, I think major.tom was right that their Bagdad and Afghanistan offices were both hit.

The leaked memo was about a discussion to hit a third location : their CENTER in "friendly" Bahrain.

Post by **faceless** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:56 am

The original article only relates to internal US law though - it's not connected to how they might blow up Al Jazeera as a result of foreign policy. So stick that up your jumper!

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:02 am

Which jumper? I have a few.

Though faceless you do raise an interesting point : does the protection offered by the constitution extend overseas to where US has "control". I think Congress said it did (re Guantanamo).

The original report should strengthen (at least morally) bloggers all over the world.

Post by **faceless** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:26 am

It's an internal law - its repercussions only affect Americans.

major.tom · Post by **major.tom** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:47 am

faceless wrote:It's an internal law - its repercussions only affect Americans.

Very good point. Any U.S. law should be interpreted as protecting the rights of American citizens or "interests" (ie. corporations)

In the interest of balance, I should caveat that the U.S. is not unique in selective application of the law...

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Sat May 12, 2007 9:36 am

major.tom wrote:
faceless wrote:It's an internal law - its repercussions only affect Americans.
Very good point. Any U.S. law should be interpreted as protecting the rights of American citizens or "interests" (ie. corporations)

In the interest of balance, I should caveat that the U.S. is not unique in selective application of the law...

I hate to be the one who is disagreeing. If you are not an America. but passing through American territory, then US laws apply. Therefore if you were extradited to US (as UK is very willing to do), you would be protected by these laws.

US laws applies to all people once they are on US controlled territory (including Guantanamo).

The US likes to apply "extra-territoriality", i.e. they have a tendency to extend their law to other countries (e.g. via free-trade / or bilaterial agreements).

The new US law also sets a powerful precedent, i.e. bloggers the world over can now more easily say they are Press (which is bound to be referred to in China or other countries which imprison non-conforming bloggers) , so it is a PR bonanza for bloggers. I might even print badges, "I am a Blogger, watch be roar" (c) WRH

Post by **faceless** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:24 pm

Mandy - you can argue the point all you like, but there is no connection between a normal person writing a blog and a government employee revealing secrets about military actions. No government will allow that - and I wouldn't expect them to. By comparison it would be like someone posting details of when you go out to the shops on a site for burglars and not getting trouble from it - it's just free information after all.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:39 pm

Maybe worth opening a thread on where freedom of information, whistle-blowing, and government secrecy intersect.

I believe the leak was embarrassing, rather than endangering military lives, and bloggs are the natural place for getting round mass-media control to publicize embarrassing items. Too many governments round the world are keen to use the "secrets" excuse to regulate and shut down bloggers.