[empath-nirvana]

Freedom of the press is not freedom to publish "without retribution", and never has been. It is freedom to publish without _government_ retribution.

If you publish some awful stuff, other people are allowed to point out that you said awful stuff and there are consequences for that, and that's how it's supposed to work.

[mcpackieh]

> Freedom of the press is not freedom to publish "without retribution", and never has been. It is freedom to publish without _government_ retribution.

You're talking about the American First Amendment specifically, not freedom of the press generally. The World Press Freedom Index includes sociocultural context and safety; if journalists are being attacked by mobs of angry citizens that is obviously a problem for the freedom of the press. To assert otherwise is ludicrous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index

[mrguyorama]

ANY "freedom of speech" that curtails the speech of people responding, using their own free speech, to someone saying something, is not freedom of speech, but rather an attempt to silence critics.

If you believe in "Freedom to publish without retribution", you believe in "might makes right".

[mcpackieh]

> curtails the speech of people responding

What are you on about? Honestly. Violence and violent intimidation are not free speech, if violence against journalists is coming from any party other than the government, how is that not a threat to free speech simply by virtue of it coming from parties other than the government? Can you answer that without going off on wild tangents?

Reminder that I responded to a claim that only governments can threaten the freedom of the press. Do I need to explain to that non-governments are capable of murder, or do you understand at least this much?

[jjk166]

Well we already have laws against mobs violently attacking people. Freedom of the press means you suffer no legal consequences from publishing, which would include refusal of the government to enforce its laws to protect people from violence because of what they had published. But if people don't like what you're publishing, they must be free for exactly the same reason to express their opinions and act as they see fit within the normal limits of the law.

[mcpackieh]

> Well we already have laws against mobs violently attacking people.

And violation of those laws is a threat to the freedom of the press.

Let's consider a hypothetical but plausible example: A billionaire named Elon Bezos is tired of journalists exposing his illegal schemes so he hires the Pinkertons to stalk and harass journalists, dox them and post their personal information on 4chan with claims of those journalists working for the pizzagate illuminati, and threaten their friends and family with life ruination and murder. In this hypothetical everything done is illegal and none of it was done by the government; would you therefore earnestly conclude that none of it constitutes a threat to the freedom of the press? Ludicrous.

You need to stop conflating the First Amendment with freedom of the press. The First Amendment is one law that aims to protect the freedom of the press from one specific kind of threat; threats coming from the government. It does not preclude the existence of other kinds of threats to freedom of the press.

[jjk166]

> In this hypothetical everything done is illegal

That's the important bit. Assuming that use of violence against journalists is illegal and the law is enforced, then that is freedom of the press. Similarly your right to own property is protected even if there are burglars out there.

[mrguyorama]

That is a crime of harrassment and other "You're being an ass to someone" crimes. A private person cannot violate the freedom of the press because a private person has almost zero restrictions on their speech. THAT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and any attempt to curtail that response is an attempt to stifle their speech!

[mcpackieh]

For the life of me I cannot figure out what you're responding to. Certainly nothing in my posts. Why don't you relax and try reading?

> That is a crime of harrassment and other "You're being an ass to someone" crimes. A private person cannot violate the freedom of the press

A private person can violate the freedom of the press using the crime of harassment! If a private person goes around murdering journalists they don't like, that's an attack on the freedom of the press. How can you possibly be so myopic as to not see this?

[eesmith]

"attacked by mobs of angry citizens" is not the only form of retribution, nor the only negative consequences facing a newspaper.

If, due to publishing an article, everyone decides to stop buying the newspaper or a subscription to the newspaper, and to stop placing ads, then that's a form of retribution/negative consequences.

Freedom of the press does not mean that people must not exercise their right of free association.

[hanniabu]

> It is freedom to publish without _government_ retribution

Which the government would never ruin the facade of freedom so they follow through at unofficial capacities

[pessimizer]

You have no legal basis for saying this, because US freedom of the press rules are about prior restraint, and government retribution isn't prior restraint. You also have no philosophical basis for saying this, because nobody put you in charge of defining what freedom of the press means to everyone else, and you've offered no references to people more respected than yourself on the subject.

But good luck with a definition of freedom of the press that doesn't include when white mobs would break into black newspapers, break the presses, and burn the building down. Does freedom of the press give the government an obligation to prosecute, or nah?

[empath-nirvana]

> Does freedom of the press give the government an obligation to prosecute, or nah?

Yes.