Hacker News Reader

Comment by dnautics | Hacker News Reader

I am not entirely certain about the history of how this happened, but in the US "the press" has taken on an unintended meaning - to refer to the fourth estate. So somehow we have created a privileged class of citizens who enjoy special constitutional protections. Originally, and rightfully, "the press" refers to the the machine used to print broadsheets (not the people who do the printing) - and so freedom of the press would probably be best interpreted as "freedom of anyone to use technology to disseminate information", which is one step beyond "freedom of speech".

View on HN

That's an interesting view. Not to challenge you, but for my own edification, do you have sources for that?

Here are some references to get you started:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/01/02/the-original-and-traditiona...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec... (Relevant part: The majority opinion viewed "freedom of the press" as an activity, applicable to all citizens or groups of citizens seeking to publish views).

However, before you even delve into the references, note that the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

IMHO, the expression freedom of speech, or of the press conveys the idea of freedom of the spoken word and freedom of the written word. Of course, I am not a lawyer, not an american, and also not a native english speaker, so my impressions on language have to be taken with a grain of salt.

A worthwhile read on the British history of this subject is "Power without Responsibility: Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain"

My biggest take from this is that your notion that "freedom of anyone to use technology to disseminate information" as upheld by the printing establishment is significantly undermined by the business of printing itself - whereby the cost of disseminating information has increased consistently to make a truly "free" press completely prohibitive to the average person. The book goes into great detail about how this happened and the nature of how the internet effects this pattern. I would highly recommend this to anyone reading this thread.

Noted pamphletist Hilaire Belloc complained about exactly that in the early 20th century.

yeah but the average person doesn't need to disseminate information to maintain a free society. It's totally fine to have a community of news mavens that supplies most of the information. What is not okay is a process of accreditation, either state-run (or less worrisome) an independent process - that affords special roadblocks to get protected status.

Common Sense[1] might disagree with you on that one.

If we are talking about truly "disseminating information" I think we need to consider any form of broadcast or public proclamation and so as we approach the 50th anniversary of a certain speech[2] I would say the dissemination of information by an average person is absolutely fundamental to the checks and balances required to construct and maintain a free society. But therein lies the rub - just swamp the channels with noise and you raise the bar for actually transmitting a meaningful signal. This is what I was alluding to in my other comment about the way the internet has effected this age old pattern.

It's not clear what your second point is saying - it's okay to have only experts informing the public, but they cannot be afforded "special... protected status"? Like parliamentary privilege? "The fourth estate"? Freedom of speech? The right to protect their sources? I'm genuinely curious about what you mean, sorry if I've misunderstood completely.

[1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%28pamphlet%29] [2: MLK - August 28th 1963]

I'm taking a literal view of the word average. Anyone motivated to write a pamphlet is by definition no longer the average person, unless almost everyone else is doing so - i don't think we need 50% of the population writing pamphlets to maintain a free society.

As to your understanding of my second point: Exactly. I am saying it's okay for only experts to be informing the public, as long as there is no barrier to anyone becoming an expert. The only way to ensure there is no barrier to anyone becoming an expert is to have no special protected status. The only way to have no special protected status is for the protected status to be extended to everyone.

In summary: Everyone should have the protection of the freedom of the press, therefore, anyone can become an expert with all the attendant protections (without having to be special), but it's okay if not everyone is an expert, as long as anyone COULD be an expert.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com