According to this article, there is no such statement as the one you interpreted...
GOP states today that a free press, one that is free of state censorship - is harming us as Americans and that only they know best on how to keep us safe from harm
That's simply not what was said...it's a politically charged, convenient twisting of words.
Also, as to the data mining arguement...when did you agree to let credit bureaus mine and archive your personal financial data? When did you sign on to let them make thier own value judgement of you as a credit risk, then share that opinion with others, possibly to your detriment? Where are the laws governing such behavior? Where is the regulatory oversight? What is a person's recourse when there are conflicts or error, other than going to the source of the mistake and hoping they'll agree with you? None whatsoever...but that's OK.
The fact is that financial transactions are monitored by all kinds of entities at all times. The bank that issued your credit card, the store where you used it, the third-party marketing firm that's hired to evaluate and profile the buying demographic...not to mention almost every web page you'll ever visit.
The point Hastert and other are actually trying to make is that the idea of freedom of the press is not childishly simple, and there are expectations of responsibility associated with it. A newspaper CAN actually print a harmful, irresponsible article. What's the difficulty in accepting that?
The same idea has been hashed over concerning freedom of speech...not everything qualifies. And not all speech is responsible speech, else we would not have things like slander and hate-speech laws. We have a right to freedom of assembly too, but try doing it without a permit in NYC and see what happens. Where's the moral outrage there?
The right to free press, or free speech, or assembly do not trump the rights of another to be safe, secure and free from persecution.
Free speech does not mean a right to incite riot.
Would a person feel just as wronged if the story detailed where American troops were stationed, what patrols and routes were planned for the day, what level of armament they had and who their informers were? That way, we could all be properly informed...we're entitled to know, after all, right?
What if it was your brother/son/dad/mom they outed that day, so the terrorist could have an easier time of killing them?
It feels better to be bubbling over with righteous indignation at the politcal outrage some choose to perceive, but I don't think it's a well thought out position to take.
Journalistic recklessness and fallibility are very real things...not everything known should be shouted from the rooftops, and never forget that our free press is a business...a business that needs to make money - first and foremost.
This was just wrong, and good people will pay the price for a stupid demonstration of "see what I can do and you can't stop me". This kind of behavior is more dangerous to a free press, because it casts the spotlight on the press' inability to make intelligent decisions about it's bylines, thereby inviting controls we don't want.
Maybe the jihadists are all over this, maybe not. Those who hunt these animals seem to feel quite strongly that we've lost an important tool.
No, I most certainly do not support curtailing freedom of the press, but I absolutely demand a very high level of intelligence and responsibility, and an understanding of consequences and who they will befall.
NYT screwed the pooch, IMO.
BTW...as usual, my use of 'you' and 'your' is intended to be generic.
