I know I will make few friends among those who blog, as most think of themselves as journalists or journalists-to-be, but recent events have led me to ask why we treat journalists so deferentially? I know the constitution guarantees a free press, but it seems to me all that requires is that we not prevent anyone from printing anything, it does not demand that we grant special rights to the press.

Special rights? Yes, we treat the press as if they were immune from the normal responsibilities of citizens. Look at the recent arrest of journalist Amy Goodman for participating in a riot at the convention. What happened? She claimed she was a journalist and, because journalists are obviously above such things as rioting, she was released, unlike everyone else arrested at the same riot. Why? Obviously at the time of arrest she was engaged in an act the police thought sufficient to imprison her, why does her status as a journalist overcome the evidence offered by the arresting officer? Can a journalist hit police? Engage in public disorder? And then face no consequences simply because they have press credentials?

Nor is that the only special right of journalists. Think of press shield laws that exist in some states. Unlike any other citizen*, someone claiming to be a journalist is not required to divulge relevant information in court, provided they can claim it is somehow essential to their duties.

Or, perhaps we should look at the campaign finance laws. Unlike other citizens, who cannot publicly make pronouncements about political figures for a set prior to elections, the press can make any statements they wish. The press has yet more rights denied to the average citizen.

And it isn't as if the press is even easy to identify. We pretend they are, but are they? Yes, a columnist for the New York Times is a journalist, but what about a freelance writer? What if he hasn't sold an article in ten years? What if he never has, but hopes to? How about a columnist for the local grocery newsletter? A high school paper? The newsletter of the American Nazi Party? A mimeographed single page paper no one has ever bought? Is anyone who ever wrote or ever hopes to write a column a journalist? Does this blog make me a journalist? You can see how easy it would be for every person living today to claim to be a journalist.

So, instead we create a privileged caste of recognized journalists. Those the courts recognize as journalists and grant special rights not held by mere citizens. The argument is, without this special caste, democracy would fail and we would be tossed into tyranny, but I somehow doubt it. Even without special rights, journalism continued unabated for centuries, even in nations where journalists are despised by the government, people continue to put out underground papers. If journalism continues under real tyranny, I doubt the elimination of press shield laws, campaign finance exceptions, and the assumption that journalists are simple observers when arrested in public disorders, will destroy our free press.

In fact, it may even benefit. For a long time the press has enjoyed special treatment and reveled in their role as "protectors of democracy", it may do them some good to experience a little of that democracy and have to deal with the government as we mere mortals do. Stripped of the right to leak classified information without consequence, to be able to participate in crimes without being arrested, and unable to withhold information without consequence, they may actually have to think a bit about the impact of  what they do on others, and on the nation itself. It may be a good lesson for some of our journalists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The only other groups so blessed are doctors and spiritual figures, and I am not so sure about those exceptions either. The rationale for both is that people would not avail themselves of those services were there not such a shield, but I argue the opposite, most people would tell a doctor the truth regardless of the law, the same for a priest. As you may notice, I am not a believer in shield laws, but that is the topic for another essay.For now, let us limit the argument to the press.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


POSTSCRIPT

This actually fits well with an essay I plan for the future. The essence of a free government is one which makes no distinctions. It does not have gun laws, as it thinks of guns as just any other good (gasoline, knives, automobiles and clubs can also kill, yet aren't controlled). It has no press shield laws as it thinks of all citizens the same, rather than creating special castes. It does not have special product liability laws, as contracts are inviolate, even when assigning liability for goods purchased.

Once we treat all goods as goods, all contracts as contracts, all people as people, we will have a much more free government. It is the creation of exceptions to the rules that allows in totalitarianism. Just think of the most oppressive laws and you will see the truth of this. Once we start to say "the rules don't apply to this one special category" we set up the conditions for unlimited government.