This may be one of the most frightening events that's threatened free speech and the free press in this country. The Senate has passed a ntaub thaiv npog txoj cai uas sau tseg cov ntawv xov xwm thiab qhov chaw tiv thaiv chav kawm ntawm cov neeg sau xov xwm tsuas yog cov tau koom nrog cov xov xwm raug cai-khaws cov haujlwm.
Los ntawm 10,000 ko taw saib, daim nqi zoo li lub tswv yim zoo. LA Times txawm hu nws tias "Ntawv nqi los mus tiv thaiv cov neeg sau xov xwm". Qhov teeb meem yog qhov pib hauv paus lus uas tso cai rau tsoomfwv los txiav txim qhov a sau xov xwm yog, leej twg a sau xov xwm yog, lossis dabtsi cov xov xwm raug cai-kev sib sau ua ke yog.
Here's my take. Citizen journalism is applying insurmountable pressure on our government that's exposing a ton of issues. Of course there's bi-partisan support to redefine and narrow the scope of who or what a journalism is. Anyone threatening to expose government problems may lose their protections of the press under our Constitution. All politicians would love that… it means they could apply government forces to threaten and intimidate those they disagree with.
Seb koj pom zoo nrog Edward Snowden or not, the information he released informed the public and caused outrage of the programs where the NSA was spying on us. This bill doesn't impact the legalities of what Snowden did. Frighteningly, it could impact whether or not the journalist who released it was legitimate, though, had he been an American citizen. Was releasing classified materials cov xov xwm raug cai-kev sib sau ua ke?
Nyob nruab nrab ntawm xyoo 1972 thiab 1976, Bob Woodward thiab Carl Bernstein tau sawv los ua ob tus kws sau xov xwm nto moo tshaj plaws hauv tebchaws Asmeskas thiab tau raug suav hais tias yog cov neeg sau xov xwm uas tsoo Watergate, zaj dab neeg loj tshaj plaws hauv Asmeskas kev tswj hwm. Feem ntau ntawm cov ntaub ntawv lawv tau muab tau ua tiav los ntawm kev tshaj xov xwm nyob rau hauv Tsev Dawb. Puas yog cov xov xwm raug cai-kev sib sau ua ke?
Perhaps Republicans in power could state that MSNBC is not legitimate. Perhaps Democrats in power could state Fox News isn't legitimate. What if one journalist exposes a huge government scandal through tsawg dua qhov xov xwm-sib sau ua ke? Nws puas tuaj yeem raug pov rau hauv tsev loj cuj thiab cov lus dag uas raug faus? Cov no tsuas yog cov teeb meem hauv kev tshaj xov xwm ib txwm muaj. Nws mob heev ntxiv thaum koj xav txog Is Taws Nem thiab seb puas sau kab lus ntawm Wikipedia tiv thaiv (koj yuav tsis tau cais tias yog blogger lossis tus neeg sau xov xwm).
What about when you start a Facebook page to oppose or support a topic. You spend a ton of time curating information the internet, sharing it on your Facebook page, growing an audience and building a community. Are you a journalist? Is your Facebook page protected? Did you gather the information you shared legitimately? Or… could you get sued by the opposition, the community shut down, and even get locked up because you're not protected under the Government's txhais.
Nrog rau social media thiab digital digital, zoo siv rau txhua tus neeg koom nrog sib sau ua ke thiab tshaj tawm xov xwm. Peb txhua tus yuav tsum muaj kev tiv thaiv.
Rov qab thaum tsab ntawv sau Txoj Cai, txhua tus neeg nruab nrab ntawm txoj kev uas yuav qiv lossis them taus cov nqi luam ntawv yog a sau xov xwm. If you go back and review some of the single page papers that were printed back then, they were atrocious. Politicians were smeared with absolute lies to misrepresent them to the public in order to bury their political aspirations. Being a journalist didn't require a degree… you didn't even have to spell or use proper grammar! And news organizations didn't appear until decades later as newspapers began to buy up the smaller circulations. This led to the news media moguls we have today.
Cov thawj neeg sau xov xwm tau ntau heev tsuas yog cov pej xeem tau txais lo lus tawm. Muaj qes legitimacy to who they targeted, how they acquired the information, or where they published it. And yet… our leaders of our country… who were often the target of these attacks… chose to protect the rights of free speech and journalism. They chose, intentionally, not to define what the press was, how news was gathered, or by whom.