While I don't agree with the administration's approach, should we not have standards that we judge legacy news institutions by? Some are getting their information directly from Iran and its proxies, taking them at their word as if they have no stake in the game. Perhaps they are legally allowed to do so, but the damage is done. So beyond the legal standard, does FIRE have an ethical standard by which it assesses news?
FIRE has an ethical standard to support free speech. Do some claims come "directly from Iran and its proxies"? Sure. Those claims can, and will, be refuted if they are fake.
"should we not have standards"? Yes. That's what the marketplace is for.
"the damage is done". Who arbitrates what speech is "damage"? The government? They're the biggest liars with the biggest motive to disseminate falsehoods on the face of the planet. Who is the expert in your vision who will arbitrate what is allowed and what is not?
While I don't agree with the administration's approach, should we not have standards that we judge legacy news institutions by? Some are getting their information directly from Iran and its proxies, taking them at their word as if they have no stake in the game. Perhaps they are legally allowed to do so, but the damage is done. So beyond the legal standard, does FIRE have an ethical standard by which it assesses news?
FIRE has an ethical standard to support free speech. Do some claims come "directly from Iran and its proxies"? Sure. Those claims can, and will, be refuted if they are fake.
"should we not have standards"? Yes. That's what the marketplace is for.
"the damage is done". Who arbitrates what speech is "damage"? The government? They're the biggest liars with the biggest motive to disseminate falsehoods on the face of the planet. Who is the expert in your vision who will arbitrate what is allowed and what is not?