Civil disobedience
Since this morning's bombings in London are way too depressing to post about, let's stick to something more concrete: Judith Miller of the Times is indeed going to jail over her refusal to divulge a confidential source. The Times presents a very cogent, well-written defense of both her actions and its in supporting her -- the kind of piece that makes me proud to be an American. And those moments are few and far between these days.
posted by nori | 11:56
5 Comments:
Proud to be an American? What does the legal defense of a reporter have to do with supporting a mapmaker? Was Amerigo Vespucci persecuted for his work?
Of what are you proud?
Wait, really? Are you serious? The whole "proud to be an [X]" bit -- whatever it pertains to -- has absolutley zero to do with geography, and everything to do with the ideals that make up [X].
Do I need to continue? Did you read the link? The whole bit about Miller "surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government"? It's the support of *that* ideal that makes me proud.
The article offers compelling commentary indeed. But, is all the "America"/"American" rhetoric justified?
Take the fourth paragraph:
"...she acted in the great tradition of civil disobedience that began with this nation's founding..." Obviously, the article is dealing with the Constitution and the judicial system of the United States of America (despite the parochial tone, e.g., "this nation").
Not trying to pick nits -- nor am I acting as PC deputy -- by prodding at the use of the term "American." Granted, citizens of a particular country have the right to call themselves by whatever name they want. For example, Columbian citizens call themselves "columbianos," although obviously they do not all support Columbus (the sailor), and, technically, they could also justifiably call themselves "americanos."
So, setting aside the nomenclature discussion for the moment (although important to linguistic determinism), The Times article implies that freedom of information *began* with the USA's “founding fathers.” From a historic prospective, linking freedom of information/press did not begin in the USA, nor is it an exclusive precept of the USA. Formal freedom of information legislation – according to most accounts -- began earlier in the 1700s, in Sweden with Anders Chydenius (see Stephen Lamble’s summary, http://members.optusnet.com.au/~slamble/freedom_of_information.htm). And many of Chydenius’ contributions were based on philosophies from the Tang Dynasty.
Back to nomenclature, supporting America (or, being an American) signifies different things to different people. In fact, the term has become so ambiguous that additional clarification is often necessary, and therefore, the jesting and prodding.
Kind regards,
mms
Sorry, the reference link got cut off. This
link should take you to Lamble's site.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home