SatanicNotMessianic , 9 months ago

I understand your point, but specifically regarding journalists, I think they generally take a more cautious approach due to free speech rights.

I could see an argument that such an interpretation would make it impossible for the press to report on many of the major conflicts around the world in an independent fashion. We want them to report on Hamas and the IRA and the PLO and Boko Haram and so on. Not only does that allow citizens to see the full story of the conflict, but we would run a very real risk of this interpretation being used against any group the US doesn’t want to have interviewed. Earth (and Animal) Liberation Front come to mind, along with the Panthers and groups throughout central and south America.

The point is that in most cases journalists have to pay for access. They may pay the bartender for an intro to the local rebel leader. They may pay for protection or as an admission fee. They may even pay the interviewee for their time, although this is sometimes considered against ethical guidelines if it could be viewed as creating a conflict of interest.

It seems like it could be used as a type of prior restraint.