What stood out to me most is the existence of a "media license".
Wouldn't letting the government decide who qualifies as media go against the idea of free press?
Just get rid of that nonsense. No more problems.
Wouldn't letting the government decide who qualifies as media go against the idea of free press?
Just get rid of that nonsense. No more problems.
What you're asking for will not be easy to enact. In a monarchy, the concept of "natural rights" remains somewhat culturally foreign.
How do you figure? The monarch is just a symbolical position. It carries no political power.
This is probably the "license" they're mentioning.
What the license in question does is that it makes the publisher potentially liable for publishing stuff that shouldn't be published rather than the journalist for writing it. That license is not the problem.
Profiting off a secret password is not intrinsically illegal.
The journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding famously made the WikiLeaks password "SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds" public when they included it in a book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:_Inside_Julian_Assan...
They didn't get special permission to sell that manuscript to the publisher.
Besides, all of my passwords contain secret information concerning Swedish defense installations, making them illegal for you to publish. /wink