The Constitution says nothing specific about journalism specifically. It regards only speech and the press, of which journalism is a subset. Publishing, alone, is surely protected.
"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."
This makes the clear assumption the first amendment is an unlimited protection which it isn’t. I would suggest reading the opinions of Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Ah, so publishing a graph or data table (“things”) is not journalism, right...?
It’s amazing the mental somersaults one must do to justify the fact that “the West” can (and will) ignore the basic principles of democratic society if it harms their security stance.
>It’s amazing the mental somersaults one must do to justify the fact that “the West” can (and will) ignore the basic principles of democratic society if it harms their security stance.
It's amazing the mental somersaults one must do to justify smearing half a billion people ("The West") based on one person's comment on HN.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with GP, but your broad brush in vilifying such a large group of individuals based on that seems to be really unfair and inappropriate.
It is pretty undeniable that subsequent Swedish, British, and US governments have been harassing Assange for 10 years now with nay a repercussion. Nobody lost their job, nobody lost an election. Same for Snowden, Manning, Winner, Kelly... It seems like our societies have become completely unable and unwilling to demand accountability, our rulers only ever fail upwards. So yeah, I’m using a broad brush because it’s very hard not to.
