And your exact example shows what you may be missing. The nuance here is not as stark as you describe. Observations that "end at people's noses" in public may be one thing (and still arguable), but observations of behavior around which people have an expectation of privacy are entirely different.
You do not have unrestricted free speech rights on my physical private property, for example. In fact, I can engage in prior restraint should I so choose.
That is the nuance being discussed here, where digital boundaries are exchanged for physical ones.
Ummmm... you may not understand what the boundaries or intent of the first amendment is. The crux of this issue is that the research or experiments are performed on and involved others without their express consent.
No researcher can claim protection under the first amendment for experiments that have an impact on others. Your first amendment rights end when they impinge on others' natural or constitutional rights to health and welfare.
At the extreme, a "Dr. Mengele" cannot claim that the horrific experiments he/she performed on others without (or with) their consent are protected by the first amendment.
I think it is important to be clear about what you mean by "When reporters like Zengerle take the cheap way out, they actually make things even worse."
When those associated with widely disseminated sources of information don't follow rigorous critical thinking themselves (disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence), they support the view that any perspective is legitimate. This is how we get governments that can define words, how presidents can dissemble over "is" and how sports organizations can allow women to accept responsibility for their own beatings.
The other point, which is more debatable, is whether or not you believe that journalists are making it easier for people to engage in torture. This is the age-old ethical dilemma--is using negative and evaluative language an opinion or is it reporting the issue?
I agree with Mike, the first point, at least in this case, eliminates consideration of the second. What constitutes torture is not up for debate and therefore cannot be considered opinion or subjective inflammatory language.
No, not the legal system. It is far more fundamental than that.
It has more to do, I believe, with the way people develop (and are educated) their critical thinking skills. One dictionary defines it as, "disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"
For some reason, our society does not reinforce this behavior, "particularly the informed by evidence part." I think we could make a career out of explaining why.
But it is really frustrating, no? When people (public servants, entertainers, corporations, etc.) make claims, especially important ones, no one demands any evidence nor holds that evidence to any standards of quality or provenance.
As a result, we've established that argumentation by emotion or reputation is simply enough.
Really struggling with this one... "a space on the Internet?"
How would that even work. If it is a defined space, wouldn't it follow that it would be walled and therefore have a barrier to entry?
Also, will it include existing app and website content infrastructures or require new ones? Meaning, would Facebook exist in this new space, but be subject to certain rules/expectations or would an entirely new app infrastructure be required?
For the laws not to address collection, but to address *access*. If the companies cannot use the collections freely and the collections can only be accessed via warrant, they may not have such an incentive to create them in the manner they wish.
Cowardice can be described as taking the easy road
"It is a poor tinker that blames his tools."
I think it is completely reasonable to define cowardice in this way. Fighting terrorists and catching criminals is undeniably HARD.
So are many things: being a doctor, maintaining healthy marriages, parenting kids, teaching, yada, yada, yada. These are all hard because they contain some core values, principles, ethics, etc. that are believed to be fundamentally important to our society.
"Do No Harm" is not a platitude and neither is "Defend the Constitution." It isn't "Defend the Constitution except when it gets challenging to do so."
So in my opinion, in all of these efforts choose the easy thing over the RIGHT thing, it is an act of cowardice because it is almost certainly a rationalization to justify a personal lack of fortitude to fight for the social ideal.
Senator Feinstein should take Hayden to the woodshed for such blatantly misogynistic remarks. That is a common, out-dated method for dismissing the positions or opinions of women. That along makes him sound like a dinosaur.