Five journalist shot dead

I see these 5 murdered people have dropped out of sight by both sides on this argument using them for their own political points.

The biggest respect you can give a dead journalist is to explain the importance of journalism and how it works, and why attacks on the media are dangerous.

But do carry on missing the point.

Goes back to me saying that the underlying principles of democracy were not taught well.

The Sun and the entire Hillsborough case is a good example of the failure of journalistic standards where prejudice came first and how the state doesn't always work for the people.

In the end it was human rights and public pressure largely from the left (sustained by a free press) which has won through and perhaps one day will get justice.

The whole case highlights the need for human rights... Which parts of the right wing media are very much against.

The left needs the right. The right needs the left. The tension between the two is necessary to protect us from the state and authoritianism.

Arguably if the media hasn't been working well in recent years at looking at reasons behind radicalisation, because it's been cashing in on extreme stories, chasing clicks and doesn't want to promote investigative journalism.

Heather Heyer would disagree with your analysis.

I don't have a perfect solution.

Radicalisation via social media and the press is an area that needs tackling on many fronts.

We need to identify all reasons behind it. Radicalisation is something that has many deep reasons beneath it.

I do see a need for law to have some restriction. But I am careful and mindful of what that looks like and how it's implemented.

Seeing censorship alone, as the solution to the problem without proper consideration, is dangerous though.

That's an opinion.

Lots of people disagree with that.

The difference between a fact and an opinion is part of the reason we are in such a screwed up mess as a society.

Debating on the Internet 202: don’t waste your energy debating the pointlessly argumentative.

True real of the internet:
Remember you are never arguing with the person you are arguing with on the internet. You are talking to all the other people reading the argument on the internet.

re: Charlie Hebdo.

Honestly?

What they printed was offensive to a lot of people. But I don't think that you should kill people for their journalism. Ever.

It's about having a range of views in society. I don't have to agree with them all. In fact I SHOULD be upset by a lot of journalism. That's part of the point of journalism!

I generally think censorship tends to be counterproductive and can work against you. Censorship is just about the power of those who make the decisions about what to censor and what not to censor. When you advocate too much censorship you are run the risk giving power to an unseen and unaccountable group. It can become very unjust and inconsistent very easily. It can also hamper the ability to conduct essential investigative journalism.

Any censorship should be extremely limited and explicit in its definition. And there should be accountability and complete transparency over the censors.

That's why the management of censorship is not working on twitter and it's frankly not working on MN atm.

Where the line falls is a very difficult and sensitive subject. There is a whole raging argument over Levinson 2 on the whole subject. I am concerned about what might happen with that. I'm not going to go there on this thread though.

Where problems perhaps have crept in, is where authoritarianism has appeared in the guise of false liberalism through censorship. To characterise this as 'the left' is a fundamental lack of understanding in politics though.

This has been because of poor teaching of democratic principles and taking our freedoms and rights for granted. You have to understand the foundations of rights not just believe that something is a right.

As a rule, I think you have to be responsible with journalism. Journalists should be held accountable by society as to what they say and do, and understand the power they hold. What they say has influence. If that influence might harm society, you need to be able to damn well justify why you said it.

I am well aware this isn't always the case with some appalling examples - like the Minnie Dowler case.

Whether Charlie Hebdo were responsible, is perhaps a point of contention; but many other publications have crossed lines in various ways which make me feel very uncomfortable with.

But as I say, no one deserves to die over it.

The system isn't perfect. But there isn't a viable alternative that supports our freedom either.

I believe in the power of the truth and the right to speak the truth to power above most things.

Free journalism is essential to that. In recent years both the UK and US have slide down the Reporters without Borders free press index in an alarming way. For countries so proud of their freedom of speech, it is particularly concerning.