Where Is The Line Between "Freedom of The Press" and "Treason?"

[DarkNoon]

The problem is that any attempt to enforce truth immediately raises the question of who gets to decide what the truth is.

This is where I think the real dilemma is.

If the government becomes the authority deciding what is true and false, you have created an extraordinarily dangerous slippery slope. Eventually inconvenient truths can simply be labeled misinformation.

But pointing out that danger cannot become an excuse to let media organizations knowingly publish false information without consequence either. Don't let the this excuse be the reason the media cannot be held accountable at all. That is simply nihilism at its best.

There still has to be accountability when an outlet knowingly lies to the public.

I don't have a clean answer to how you accomplish both.

I understand the desire to enforce standards of truth and accuracy. I also understand why giving the government the authority to determine truth should make everyone uncomfortable. INCLUDING ME.

The problem is figuring out how to hold people accountable for knowingly spreading false information without creating an authority that can eventually decide what everyone is allowed to believe is true.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Nowadays treason is if the press exercise the freedom to report what they should.

The problem is when the press reports what they should not.

 

[DarkNoon]

I also want to make my position on OPSEC clear because I have been very consistent about this for a long time.

I am probably one of the strongest advocates here for free and open information, transparency, and access to original sources. In many cases I take transparency further than mainstream media does.

But I am also an American.

When there is a realistic possibility that information could help an enemy or put American or allied troops at greater risk, I cannot justify amplifying it simply because it is technically public.

Public does not automatically mean responsible to repost.

I have repeatedly asked members to exercise voluntary restraint when it comes to real time military movements, locations, interception footage, impact footage, identifiable landmarks, aircraft movements, and similar information during active or potentially imminent military operations.

I have even withheld information from my own reporting for that reason.

That does not mean I support government censorship or preventing people from discussing publicly available information. In fact, several times I have specifically said these requests were voluntary and not moderation rules.

My position is simply that freedom to publish information does not remove the responsibility to consider what publishing that information might actually do.

If something I post could realistically make an enemy's job easier or increase the danger to my own troops, then I would rather not be the person who helped spread it.

For anyone wondering whether this is a new position of mine, it is not. Here are previous examples:
A PLEA FOR DISCRETION... Regarding U.S. Military Movements in the Event of Strikes on Iran
[A PLEA FOR DISCRETION] Regarding India (भारत-Bhaarat) Military Movements
Escalating European Crisis | Sep. 25th/Oct. 11th | Discussions
Iran Regime Collapsing & US/IDF Intervention Imminent | Jan. 1st-14th | Reports
Middle East Regional Wars | Discussions
DEFCON 4 | US-Iran-Israel Hostilities May Breakout Shortly | Feb. 2nd/28th | Reports

And these are just the ones I could find. So don't say I am not consistent.