U.S. surveillance programs threaten freedom of press, report says

[IDemo]

Source: Reuters

U.S. surveillance programs are making it more difficult for government officials to speak to the press anonymously, two rights groups said on Monday.

Large-scale surveillance, on top of the Obama administration's crackdown on national security leaks, threatens the freedom of the press and the right to legal counsel, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union said in a joint report.

The National Security Agency's surveillance programs, which include the collection of telephone "metadata," have heightened government officials' concerns about dealing with the media, as "any interaction - any email, any phone call - risks leaving a digital trace that could subsequently be used against them," the report said.

The groups interviewed more than 90 journalists, lawyers, and current or former senior U.S. government officials for the report.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/us-usa-surveillance-press-censorship-idUSKBN0FX19M20140728

[candelista]

1. If our mainstream media had freedom of the press...

...they wouldn't know what to do with it.

[RKP5637]

2. Excellent point! n/t

[Historic NY]

5. Exactly.....

most just spout talking points that they repeat through their talking heads...24/7 media isn't news is propaganda disguised as news.

[merrily]

6. Agree, but that is irrelevant to the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, limits government. It puts no onus on media to know what to do, just like my Constitutional right to hire a lawyer requires government to allow me to hire a lawyer (if I can afford one), even if I don't know how to assess legal skills.

[bigwillq]

3. K and R (nt)

[Andy823]

4. One problem

The "main stream media" is bought and paid for by right wing corporations. All they seem to report is things that "could" be some kind of new "scandal" to take down the president. Do you really think that if a republican was in the WH they would give a damn about reporting "leaks" that would make that republican look bad?

What we need is a press that will start reporting on the republicans total goal of NOT doing a damn thing in order to score political points with their brain dean base. A press that just might point out that in order to fix the mess Bush left us it will take acts of congress passing new laws to reign in the corporations buying whatever they want with the congress members they keep supporting with millions of dollars. A press that is not afraid to do their job instead of simply spewing the right wing talking points daily. If we actually had an "honest" press the country might actually find out just how sick and disgusting the republicans are, and just how much damage they are doing to the country and the people who live here.

[davidthegnome]

7. Absurd notion.

Freedom of press? How free is a press owned by corporations? How free is a press that has to flee to other Nations when they tell inconvenient truths? How free is a press that sits around talking about important issues like whether Justin Bieber should be deported... or how Kanye West feels about his marriage to Kim Kardashian?

If we ever had anything resembling free press, it was not in my lifetime. I have grown up with corporate media... but I do recognize the difference between a corporate media and a free press.

This is why I just can't become terribly outraged about this specific issue. We have not had a free press for many years, if we ever really did.

Free press... hah. Hahaha.

[merrily]

9. Please see Replies 6 and 8.

Freedom of the press is one of the things that protects Democratic Underground, my post and yours, along with many other voices. Or should.

You want to bash mass media? I'm right with you. But, the quality of mass media doesn't relieve the government of its obligations under the Constitution.

[davidthegnome]

10. Government obligations...

One of those government obligations IS a free press. Ever since the media was bought out by corporations, we have not had one. Our posts here are protected only in theory. Do you think someone who promotes what our government considers "dangerous propaganda" isn't carefully watched? Was the occupy movement not spied on? Did the government not react very strongly to their peaceful protests? I do not have much faith in our system of checks and balances, or in the powers that be within our government. How many good journalists have been either censored, or killed, or forced to flee their Country just for speaking the truth?

I guess I see most of it as a big scam. Freedom of speech with multiple exceptions, most of them depending upon what wealthy and powerful individuals might find offensive or dangerous, should the truth ever come out. This is why Snowden could not stay in the US to "face justice" as many have called upon him to do. It would be a mockery of justice that he would face. Yet Snowden is called a traitor and there are calls for his death or imprisonment - even by intelligent people.

I'm all for dismantling these NSA programs, for forcing our government and it's agencies to respect the right to privacy, to protect whistle blowers, to stop with this collection of metadata, most of which pertains to innocent activity and innocent people. I've just become rather cynical in regards to our government being able or willing to do the right thing in the vast majority of instances. I've also become rather cynical about our ability to make them do so.

Consider - we have a corporate owned media, a corporate owned government, a prison system which is slowly being taken over by corporations. They are also beginning to invade our schools with corporate propaganda. It's not about justice, or freedom, or truth. It's about the money. A handful of rich assholes keep getting richer while we pretend our version of the news matters to anyone but the handful of us (in comparison to the majority) who actually bother to learn anything about it, or care.

I'm past angry, I'm past depressed. This is why I can't get too excited about this particular issue. There are so very many. We should have all taken to the streets years ago. Yet we protest lightly, or mildly, we write strongly worded letters, threaten to withhold our campaign donations from people who don't need them anyway. Perhaps we even refuse to vote for corporate politicians, on an individual basis.

The problem is, the corporations own the government and the media. It's like one huge circle jerk. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of protests which only get about ten or so followers, because everyone else is either too busy trying to survive on minimum wage, or too busy playing with their new toys.

Journalism should be a calling - and freedom of press is a beautiful notion. In this context though, in the time and Country we live in, those are absurd notions because of the reality of the situation.

Should is not does.

I expect we want many of the same things, I'm just becoming too cynical and too tired to hold out much hope or faith. I work for 8 dollars an hour and I'm exhausted. But I'm surviving. For a great many of us, survival itself has become the struggle, in great part - because we have long been betrayed by the government and media.

[merrily]

8. Not only freedom of the press. Freedom of speech, freedom of

association, right to assemble and petition government for redress of grievances, and so on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025281294


Maybe even freedom of religion, since mosques are subject to stricter scrutiny.

Then, we go to the Fourth Amendment, the right to a trial by jury and so on.

The War on Terror has been a war on the Bill of Rights as well. Maybe even the separation of powers as well.

True, we were never in a perfect world as far as the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as a whole. But, even the internment of the Japanese, heinous as that was, was "only" for the duration of World War II. I don't see the War on Terror ever ending. Even if we finally stopped using the term, we've never stopped pretending it's a war, just like World War II, instead of a war that simply gets dubbed a war. It's more like the War on Drugs than it is like World War II.

But, sure, let's forget all that and deflect to criticism of the media or Snowden or Greenwald. Those criticisms may or may not be true, but they are irrelevant to the actions of what is supposedly our government, using our tax dollars to violate our Constitution.

[JDPriestly]

14. +1000

[Enthusiast]

18. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[Scuba]

22. + another

[marions ghost]

11. And this is why

what Edward Snowden did was so important to any notion of "freedom" in the United States.

[Bragi]

23. Totally agree

This report would not have happened had it not been for Snowden's disclosures and Greenwald's reporting.

That's what the world that isn't America knows.

[JDPriestly]

12. It also limits the ability of a government employee to speak privately to a member of Congress.

It imposes a bar to meaningful communication about malfeasance in the government on anyone in a position to know of fhe wrongdoing.

It is completely and utterly unconstitutional, and there is no way around it.

How could a so-called constitutional scholar think otherwise?

The NSA and other intelligence services in the US accessing information obtained from the records of American citizens in this way is incompatible with any semblance of freedom or democracy. How could anyone even conceive of such a scheme?

If you disagree with me, read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide, before you comment on DU please. I think a lot of people do not admit what is happening to our nation to themselves. A lot of people are in denial. Some know but just can't face it. And some think criticizing this horrible program is disloyal to Obama. It is not disloyal to Obama. He is as much a victim of this loss of privacy as anyone else. And that will especially be the case when he leaves office.

[Enthusiast]

19. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

"It is completely and utterly unconstitutional, and there is no way around it."

[Uncle Joe]

13. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, IDemo.

[blkmusclmachine]

15. That's a feature, and not a bug.

[riderinthestorm]

16. A very sad K&R nt

[WillyT]

17. And From The Intercept:

Top Journalists and Lawyers: NSA Surveillance Threatens Press Freedom and Right to Counsel
By Dan Froomkin - TheIntercept
28 Jul 2014, 9:34 AM EDT

Link: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/28/nsa-surveillance-threatens-press-freedom-right-counsel-survey-finds/

& Rec !!!

[bemildred]

20. Watching is a hostile act, predators watch their prey. nt

[riderinthestorm]

21. Almost 24 hours later and not a single "anti Snowden" poster has commented on this

Why? Because this isn't about Snowden. This is about the harmful effects of the NSA's surveillance.

And their position isn't really anti-Snowden, its really pro-authoritarian and pro-NSA.

Its a bit sickening to see them ignore this thread. They've had almost 24 hours to read it and yet they've chosen to deliberately decide that this isn't worth weighing in.

Their lack of response is very, very telling imho....

[Bragi]

24. Yes, their silence is very telling indeed!

The pro-surveillance brigade seems to operate as one, like it was a well regulated e-militia of some sort.

[marions ghost]

26. "...a well-regulated e-militia"

they do march in lock-step

[marions ghost]

25. Yeah how do they deal with the dissonance?

------1) Pro authoritarian NSA and 2) Pro freedom of speech, association, assembly etc --would seem to be two concepts that are in direct conflict...

[Octafish]

27. What JFK told newspaper publishers...

"The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

http://www.michaeljournal.org/kennedy.htm