Journalism, goal of the authoritarian – 24/02/2019

Some coincidences that may not be. This is an alert. Two consecutive events. Judge Clarence Thomas, of the US Court, has just asked for a review of the doctrine of true malice that protects the freedom of the press, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. Two, Trump has just accused: "The New York Times is the real enemy of the people." And, in addition, that "the press is totally out of control".

A fundamental concept of freedom of expression is that governments will refrain from wanting to control the press. They argue that they defend the interests of the people that they seek to protect, but in truth, authoritarian regimes want to discipline what they do not control. Do not admit criticism or, less, remove clothes in the sun.

Look also

This applies to Trump, Putin, Maduro, Cristina Kirchner, Ortega or whoever prefers the reduction of journalism to propaganda. When these behaviors are faced with the conviction of defending the power of their decisions, they try to stifle the media that are not subordinated. Slogans and actions as there were until 2015 against Clarin or these Trump and other harangues disqualifying those who investigate their actions have been and are very dangerous. They reveal the nature of their promoters, beyond the opportunist electoral composition.

The doctrine that strengthens the freedom of expression and that Justice Thomas wishes to examine follows from the case that the New York Times won in court against Alabama Commissioner Lester Sullivan. A defense committee of Martin Luther King had published a petition alleging police brutality against a demonstration for the rights of blacks. Sullivan accused the Times of defamation.

Look also

Clarin Bulletins

What you need to know today | The most important news of the day to read in ten minutes

Monday to Friday morning.

Local justice gave him the reason and fined the newspaper. But the US court failed in favor of the Times. And it was historic because it is considered in many countries as a paradigm of the freedom of the press. Carlos Fayt praised it thus: "(…) resolved that the First Amendment protected the press if the defamed was a public agent and could not demonstrate with a" convincing clarity "that the defamation had been committed with" a real malice, say with the knowledge of his falsity or with a reckless disinterest to know if it was wrong or not, criticize in this way erroneous but honest criticisms ". And reversed the burden of proof.

Trump acted at the same time as Judge Thomas' application for review: "We will open our defamation laws so that when we write negative, horrible and false articles, we can sue them and earn a lot of money. ;money."

Look also

Thomas had been charged with badual harbadment by lawyer Anita Hill at her appointment. The case is well known from a 2013 popular documentary, "Anita". In 2018, Judge Kavanaugh, also accused of harbadment, joined the Court. Trump celebrated his confirmation as a triumph.

The bias of these judges makes that Thomas's proposal can progress.