Skip to main content

the two-tiered first ammendment protections of presstitutes and citizenry

The slew of citizen journalist arrests at protests deemed unauthorized demonstrates a clear double standard in the protections municipalities and their police grant regarding the first amendment. While orders to disperse from public streets are constitutionally questionable on face, the arbitrary discrimination between government condoned journalists and anyone else on the scene raises startling questions with human rights violation implications.
As if working together like members of a team, corporate sponsored mainstream media representatives are literally given a game plan by the policy media liason, as everyone else is treated like a criminal for what is a clear expression of the constitutionally protected right to assemble freely.

While I am interested in any cases which have augmented the 1st amendment to allow governments to impose time or place restrictions, the wording itself suggests no scope of time or place, which implies all collective spaces more than any other are subject to this constitutional protection.

Let me tell you why I've brought it up:
When journalists, "the press" are not as much watchdogs of power, but rather than lapdogs, it's becomes increasingly difficult for the population to understand what goes on around them. I won't purport any conspiracy about the unhealthy relationship between the powers that be and those charged to report on them, but rather, take a look at this youtube playlist featuring a segment from the Conan show called,  "media matters" In the segment Conan demonstrates the reality of a corporate local news affiliate feeder system whereby dozens of organizations across the country all report the same stories, in many cases with the same words.
Homogeneity in journalism is a big a problem for society. When everyone is getting the same news from the same voice, and that voice is not a free voice, we should all be terrified.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

To Be or Not to Be, Part 1: WHEREAS

I remembered quickly in the last weeks...
As stories about the Beckham group soccer deal coalesced around a last minute vote of the City of Miami Commission to approve a referendum on leasing public land. A soccer stadium deal, eventually revealed as a gigantic real estate deal for a local hotshot.
I remembered: No matter what happens it seems the people will lose.

Much closer to home, the County Commission voted in June for a referendum in my neck of the woods, North East Municipal Service Area, an unincorporated sector of the county, will get to choose to become a city. However this offer comes with many strings, and lots of loopholes. Citizens beware.
I continue my series with an extensive analysis of the June 5th, 2018 resolution. I plan at least two more posts on this county law, with a particular concern for responsibilities or debts the proposed city would owe the county from the start.


June 5, 2018 Resolution calling special election in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to be held in conjunction with the General Election on November 6, 2018, for the purpose of submitting to the electors residing within the proposed new municipality in unincorporated Northeast Miami-Dade the question of whether the BCC should be authorized to create the new municipality with the following general outermost boundaries: County line to the north; the city limits of the City of Aventura to the east; the city limits of the City of North Miami Beach to the south; and Interstate 95 to the west; and designating Greynolds Park, Water and Sewer pump stations, and the Ojus Urban Area District as areas of countywide significance.

If you found the title too long to read then society may have bigger issues than whether NE unincorporated Dade should incorporate into a city. However that title, dear readers, serves as the title of a June 5th ordinance before the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners, proposed by District 4 Commissioner Heyman, to decide whether or not to give the voters of the affected area an election to incorporate. (form a new city)

While on face I like the idea of a smaller, more local government implementing policy in my neighborhood, my initial enthusiasm made way for more long-term critical thinking. As an idealist I regularly forget that other opinions exist in the universe, and likewise other concepts of local governance. What conditions would exist in this new municipality? What debts and responsibilities would it have before existing? And what would might it look like if we voted Yes to the ballot question in November on incorporation?

I have to wonder how anyone could make a reasona…

To Be or Not to Be, Part 2: Resolution

I continue my analysis of R-576-18, picking up here I left off yesterday. Luckily I don't have nearly as much to say today.