@BradMossEsq @emptywheel He was assisting Glenn and Laura and was on a trip booked and paid for by the Guardian. And, yes, that qualifies.
-
-
Replying to @bmaz
@bmaz@emptywheel Is everyone who works at the Guardian a "journalist"? Is the janitor? The tech staff? The receptionist?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq So terrorist is an essentialist definition but journalist isn't? Curious.@bmaz2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@bmaz Are we expanding "acts of journalism" to include auxiliary staff?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq@emptywheel By the way, just to be clear, the UK court itself noted the Miranda detention was an impingement on the press.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bmaz
@bmaz@emptywheel an indirect one is the language I believe they used1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq@emptywheel An impingement nevertheless. Miranda one HELL of a lot closer to "journalist" than "terrorist".1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bmaz
@bmaz@emptywheel the statute title is a misnomer. It is broad enough to cover "acts of terrorism" that do not meet normal definition2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq Again, you have a notion there's a "normal" definition. Why?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel doesn't mean Miranda was labeled a "terrorist". And that's my point about the broad scope of the statute. And the misnomer issue1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@BradMossEsq The statute was written to enable abuse of power, as many terrorism statutes are.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.