Slashdot Mirror


Fearing Government Surveillance, US Journalists Are Self-Censoring

binarstu writes "Suzanne Nossel, writing for CNN, reports that 'a survey of American writers done in October revealed that nearly one in four has self-censored for fear of government surveillance. They fessed up to curbing their research, not accepting certain assignments, even not discussing certain topics on the phone or via e-mail for fear of being targeted. The subjects they are avoiding are no surprise — mostly matters to do with the Middle East, the military and terrorism.' Yet ordinary Americans, for the most part, seem not to care: 'Surveillance so intrusive it is putting certain subjects out of bounds would seem like cause for alarm in a country that prides itself as the world's most free. Americans have long protested the persecution and constraints on journalists and writers living under repressive regimes abroad, yet many seem ready to accept these new encroachments on their freedom at home.'"

25 of 376 comments (clear)

  1. Deluded ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surveillance so intrusive it is putting certain subjects out of bounds would seem like cause for alarm in a country that prides itself as the world's most free

    Continuing to believe that is a sign you're delusional, not 'free'.

    1. Re:Deluded ... by tysonedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Continuing to believe that by self-censoring one can evade being the subject of government surveillance is a sign of being truly delusional.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:Deluded ... by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about the simplest and yet most important one?

      Being able to have a conversation with a couple of people about highly controversial topics without fear of the government recording your conversations, creating files on all of you, and adding you to watch lists that strongly curtail your freedom of movement?

      I seem to remember the Founding Fathers being pretty fucking excited about getting that one into the framework of the country....

    3. Re:Deluded ... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should read the correspondence of the founding fathers. They spell out very explicitly that the right to bear arms applies to individuals, and that the purpose of that right is to curb an oppressive government. The "militia" includes all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 40, not just members of an established militia.

      There is no misunderstanding on the part of gun rights advocates. The misunderstanding is intentionally spread by the gun control crowd. Government is not meant to have control over any man's ability to defend himself, period. We have made exceptions for dangerously violent people, and the mentally infirm - everyone else is entitled to carry the same weapons that the police forces are authorized to carry.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Deluded ... by nostromo53 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Justice William O. Douglas had a pithy observation about this:

      "As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

    5. Re:Deluded ... by Marful · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please list some of the things you would like to do but can't because you are not free. I can't think of any.

      No fly list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

    6. Re:Deluded ... by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. This is why an "originalist" interpretation of the Bill of Rights is paving the road to tyranny. I'm looking at you, Justice Scalia!

      In a lot of ways, the principles of the Constitution are greater than the men who framed it. One could say the same about the Magna Carta, with greater emphasis and confidence. What matters is what the principles in those documents mean to *us*, and what we do about it.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    7. Re:Deluded ... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have a flea market table without paying for a 'business license', put up a shed or BBQ pit in my backyard without paying for a 'construction license', buy an ephedrine-based cold medicine without being put on a government watchlist, open an iced cream parlor without paying for a 'milk license' (NOT a health inspection, simply permission to sell a milk-based product), drive without a seatbelt, ride a bike without a helmet, stay out after 10 PM (as a teenager), buy a super large soft drink, tell your psychologist or guidance counselor about violent fantasies without being reported to a government agency. I could go on all day. Freedom isn't always about the huge things, it is also about simply living your life and being left alone as long as you weren't attacking people. Many of those freedoms are long gone, and the worst thing to me is that you can't think of any. Democracy ends with a standing ovation, "for the children!"

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    8. Re:Deluded ... by crunchygranola · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not having insurance does not mean you're using the ER as your insurance. The fix is to repeal that law, not to force others to pay for the freeloaders.

      Not having insurance does indeed mean you're using the ER as your insurance. If you believe that this obvious fact is not a fact, you should provide a reason for your belief.

      That you feel the appropriate remedy, for what you claim is a non-existent problem, is to repeal the law requiring ER treatment indicates that you do indeed believe people without insurance are using the ER as their insurance.

      A few of problems with this proposed remedy:

      • It means that no one gets treated at an ER unless they can produce proof of insurance on the spot. This has serious implications for the health and safety of every American including the insured (though fine with the "Let 'em die crowd.)
      • It vaporizes the favorite rationale of Republican politicians for why U.S. health care is just fine and dandy.
        G.W. Bush (2007): "I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.”
        Mitt Romney (2012): "If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care."
      • It means that people without insurance actually will "just die".
      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  2. American talk a big game when it comes to freedom by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but their actions tend to contradict what they say.

    Torture and the taking of political prisoners are touted as flaws of third world dictatorships and communists v. waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay and attempts to arrest Snowden and others who have taken a political stance they don't like.

  3. Watching watchers by mrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The other three out of four were too fearful of their survey answers being logged by the NSA...

  4. Journalists have been self-censoring a long time by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Journalists have for years been censoring information - roughly 90% of them are Democrats (really statists), and many are loathe to present any Democratic official in a negative light. Stories negative to Democrats or the expansion of federal government are usually buried, any chance to pillory a Republican (or non-statist like many libertarians) is sized with glee.

    So it's not hard to imagine that people already heavily censoring work would expand what they decided to censor. It's also hard to be sorry for them.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  5. Done their job in the first place by Bodhammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe if the so-called press had done their job in the the first place over the last 20 years we would be in this mess.

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  6. Re:Government is too powerful by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By voting for which party in our political duopoly? The whole American political system is a mess because with the two entrenched parties, there is almost no ballot space for new ideas.

  7. Stop it. by AndyAndyAndyAndy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once again, you're plowing your way though the comments with a reckless lack of perspective. There's no need to run a police state in order to institute universal healthcare, expand education programs, or build on welfare mechanisms. Nor does running a progressive agenda inevitably give way to the construction of a police state. There is nothing inextricable about the two ideas, and as usual, you don't even attempt to back up your flamebaiting claim. Knock it off.

    --
    It's always confirmation bias!
  8. Re:Journalists have been self-censoring a long tim by ichthus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He's not talking about the politicians, he's talking about the journalists themselves (who only skew public opinion, rather than shaping public policy.)

    --
    sig: sauer
  9. No the rich are too powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And then "conservatives" like you claim to want a small government but then turn around and regulate a woman's body and people's sexual preferences with an iron fist. Your "less powerful government" would simply push the poor off a cliff so that the idle rich can buy a more influence over the government.

  10. Re:Government is too powerful by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your statement were true then Germany, Norway, Belgium, and lots of other countries would be police states. If you want to argue for smaller government you're doing it wrong.

  11. Re:Government is too powerful by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uhhhh, you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. The UN didn't cause the US to take an anti-drug stance. It was the US that coerced the rest of the world to go along with this "War on Drugs" thing. Don't blame this fiasco on the UN, it's all of our own making.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  12. Re:Government is too powerful by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    News flash: We do not have a black president. We have a half-white president, who was groomed and approved of by the entrenched party.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  13. Re:American talk a big game when it comes to freed by ewieling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was growing up we were told some of the reasons the Soviets were so terrible is because people could not travel without "their papers", the Soviet government spied on its own citizens, the Soviets put people in secret prisons, the Soviets put people in prison without trial. Sounds a lot like the USA today. In the USA today these bad things seem mostly to be limited to "special circumstances", but they set a scary precedent. There are many great things about the USA, but pretending the bad stuff doesn't exist doesn't help the country, it undermines it.

    --
    I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
  14. Re:American talk a big game when it comes to freed by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Stalin killed 50 million of his own citizens. That's a pretty big step up from what's going on in the US.

  15. Re:Government is too powerful by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Such links are drawn using logic like.. Hillary Clinton believes in educating children. Also Fascists believe in educating children. Therefore...

  16. Re: Government is too powerful by Bartles · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because I also recognize that progressivism is inherently authoritarian. It can't be imposed without ultimately backing the imposition with force.

  17. Re:American talk a big game when it comes to freed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the entire world -- and by a landslide. Either there is vastly more crime in the US than anywhere else in the world, or the system has been rigged to enrich the power elite at the expense of the common man.

    Granted, incarceration is a step below murder, but the end result is the same for a man who deserves neither: x number of years of your life have been stolen from you, by way of violence (physical force).