The United States ranks 47th on the Press Freedom Index issued by Reporters Without Borders

[Earth_First]

2012 Annual Report: http://en.rsf.org/IMG/CLASSEMENT_2012/C_GENERAL_ANG.pdf

Yikes!

[treestar]

1. What restrictions are there?

There are none on the press here. They can lie at will and publish anything they want.

What standards are they using to complain. We have the First Amendment and the press does what it wants as far as I'm concerned.

[Earth_First]

2. Their methodology is explained here:

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

[treestar]

3. Most of it appears aimed at governments in general

"The United States (47th) also owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests."

They were not arrested for what they were reporting! They were arrested for doing something. Are they saying journalists should be able to do whatever they want and violate any laws, just because? That's ridiculous. Journalists here can go to court to fight criminal cases filed against them, and it is impossible for the government to file a case against them for reporting since there are no laws against reporting or publishing anything (short of a few exotic things like threats to the POTUS, but it's the threat and not the reporting).

We have complete freedom of the press here, and anyone who thinks it is violated can take it to court and have it declared unconstitutional as in the alien and sedition laws or whatever. Their excuse for putting the US that low is absurd. The US should always be number one just for having the First Amendment and 200 years of cases and case law interpreting it.

[Earth_First]

6. Then it ought to be that much more terrifying then, yes...

If this is aimed at governments in general, not the press itself; wouldn't you agree that ranking 47th is of great concern?

[malaise]

7. Jamaica is tied with Germany at 16 but

ahead of Australia, Britain and the US.
We're behind in several indices but we do have press freedom here. It's the safety valve - people can talk.

[treestar]

13. I don't see much validity in their ranking it as "freedom of the press"

No, our government is nothing like those. Putting us behind El Salvador is ridiculous. Reporters here are never arrested for things like "insulting the head of state" as such a law is unconstitutional.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. "arrested for doing something" is a spurious assertion unless backed up.

And being "arrested for doing something" at a protest can include "taking a photo of a police officer". The charges in most of these cases were: obstruction, unlawful assembly, criminal trespass. See here: http://storify.com/jcstearns/tracking-journalist-arrests-during-the-occupy-prot

And I'm sorry, but arresting journalists wearing visible press badges who happen to be covering a protest in progress? Not really defensible, not a sign of a country where freedom of the press is much respected by the police, and mindless jingoism along the lines of "USA! USA! First amendment, motherfuckers!" doesn't change that.

[pmorlan1]

10. Thank you

Evidently some people are just blind about what goes on in their own country.

[treestar]

14. They will not be jailed but put in trial for some type of crime

that is other than publishing a report - which can say anything, even lies, and not create criminal liability.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. that's not the issue though, honestly

the issue is that properly accredited journalists are being arrested despite their accreditation for things which in most instances aren't criminal acts at all but are instead part of a broader pattern of police repression of dissent and legitimate protest. Which is in fact a significant and troubling press freedom issue.

[treestar]

17. If you are unjustly arrested

in this country, you have the right to trial and a presumption of innocence.

There are countries ahead of the US on that list where you don't have those rights. Freedom of the press in this country is complete and if in any way a person is arrested while reporting for committing some crime, they have a right to a defense in court, will appeals under the law.

And there is no LAW in existence that a reporter can be arrested for that stops their publication. The fact we don't have those laws is perhaps what makes them hard to imagine. For examples, "insulting the head of state" is a crime in some countries - they don't have rule of law and First Amendment to stop such a thing from being a law.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Of course this stops publication - that link gives examples

The very first journalist was arrested for 'disorderly conduct'. The police took away all notebooks, cameras and phones. And so he was prevented from reporting on the story. The charge was dismissed when it went to court - but, despite there being no basis to the charge, the police had successfully stopped their actions being shown.

[treestar]

20. so report on it

And on the arrest and the dismissal of charges, complete with opinion. That is nothing like the things I described that happen in other countries. He can get his notes back, but even if not, he still can recall what he saw and heard and write an article about it.

[davekriss]

11. I guess you never heard of Manufacturing Consent nor Necessary Illusions

Probably never read any of Wolin's work either

[treestar]

15. Well that's nice and mysterious

No, I have not. And there is no way those works constitute acts of congress or state legislatures that make any type of reporting illegal.

[EFerrari]

4. And 45th in literacy but #1 in military spending.

We really do get what we pay for.

[hifiguy]

19. Pithy and excellent!

[Comrade_McKenzie]

5. Sounds about right...

Not enough restrictions on certain entertainment organizations that fraudulently label themselves as news...

And arrests of legitimate independent journalists covering what the corporate media refuses to cover.

[DeSwiss]

8. K&R

''The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second.'' ~Chris Hedges

- “A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”
Usually.....

[countryjake]

12. I've just read the post with a bloodied photo-journalist in Chicago...

from Earth First's thread:


CHICAGO, IL - MAY 20: Getty Images photographer Scott Olson is seen with blood on his head after being hit by a baton by Chicago police
during a protest near the Nato conference venue on the first day of the Nato summit on May 20, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=713481


I'll take a wild guess and say that I do believe we've dropped down even a few more notches since the NATO protests this past week.

[woo me with science]

21. DU Rec. Wake the hell up, America.

Wake the hell up, Democrats. Enough pretending that the civil-rights-destroying, corporate authoritarian, police state policies are coming only from the OTHER side.

Wake the hell up and demand that our party stand against authoritarianism. Occupy now, because the one percent in both parties are moving swiftly to make occupation more difficult in the future.

[woo me with science]

22. Kick

[woo me with science]

23. Kick