|
|
|
|
|
by joe_the_user
2785 days ago
|
|
Well, technically, the state is always judge, jury and executioner. These functions may devolve to different parts of the state but they are always part of the state. Which is to say that any law that grants journalists more freedom of expression than the average person is going to run up against the problem of state then aiming to define journalists as "the people we like". It's like current employment, where it's illegal to fire someone on the grounds of race but legal to fire them "for no reason at all". That situation can protect people but it's clearly rather weak. |
|
Pardon me, I meant to say "prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner." In jury trials, the jury is the jury. Not the government. And in American civil cases, the prosecutor is a private citizen's attorneys. Not the state.
GDPR's structure is highly state-reliant. It's analogous to securities regulation in the United States. Any complaint triggers an investigation by the state, with the state able to bring and decide on charges and fines.
If you trust your government, this isn't a big deal. If you don't trust your government, it is horrific.