Did Venezuela get involved in the assassination of the president? If it is based on the principle of truth, the results of the investigation should be published. No publicity. Naturally, we believe in the principle of national security over the truth.
When prosecutors pursue the source of female reporters, they must follow the principle of truth first. Who told you the news? Who is the president's traitor? Who is the enemy of the people in power? Note that I don't use the word enemy of the country here. Because I really feel that the president sometimes does not mean the country, just as the love file sometimes does not mean patriotism. If the president makes a wrong decision, can't it be Someone accused or pointed it out? If there is no right to criticize this point, how can this increasingly powerful public authority be restrained? If
a female reporter wants to find out the truth about Venezuela, she must publish the information of the female agent Name? Is it necessary to hurt this person for the truth? Even if the female reporter accidentally came up with the news from the daughter of the female agent, and it has been confirmed by others, can the facts be released by not releasing the name of the female agent, so as to reduce the risk of doubts? The harm of the female agent's family?
The just thing A and the just thing B will not always go well, they sometimes can't get along. Liberty, democracy and liberty, economic growth and environmental protection, etc. Our current laws are only temporarily correct, and temporarily legal, for these contradictory propositions. Like the phenomenon of separation and equality, which was legal decades ago , is not legal now.
For truth first (journalists' right to freedom of speech) and confidentiality (national security), thirty years of Hedong and thirty years of Hexi. After 9/11, the weight of American national security has strengthened a lot , but does this mean that the previous right to freedom of speech is invalid? No. I think, although the Supreme Court's decision in this case is 4:5 (freedom of speech < national security). But please note that it is not 9:0 , only one vote away. Maybe one day, when another reporter "tests the law", the balance will be tilted towards "freedom of speech". This may be the price of freedom of speech.
Although the efforts of female journalists this time have failed, the tradition of civil disobedience is still manifested in civil society at any time. There will always be moments of civil resistance for the abuse of state power. There will always be insiders who will reveal what they do not agree with. The Chief's practice, and quietly announced it to the public.
View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews
