> If the US could shut down The Guardian they would.
That's stupid. Of course they wouldn't. They would require them to stop reporting on the security state. But that is vastly different from shuttering them all together.
The Guardian certainly performs a public service in a variety of other domains (from which the government can and does benefit). The security state just doesn't want the press banging around in their domain.
Let's not let the hyperbole get away from us here.
Even better, would be to have them report favourably or obtusely instead of shutting them down. I fail to see the hyperbole here... just a difference of method.
Shuttering a press outlet is a different thing in kind than what is happening right now.
The US is not Zimbabwe or Burma or Jordan. It has its serious flaws and issues that need to be addressed, but we shouldn't mistake the kind of creature that we are dealing with. Making that mistake will lead one to seriously misunderstand what the interests and possible courses of action that western governments will pursue.
Also, if one wanted to be really crabby about it, it's kind of disrespectful to all of the journalists who paid with their lives to contribute to the civic sphere to equate pervasive surveillance (as serious and insidious as it is) with the pervasive fear of physical harm and death that some journalists face.
Marcela Turati did a terrifyingly good job of conveying the price that Mexican journalists pay at the Investigative Reporters & Editors conference this year. If you really want to get a sense of that, you can watch the video here: http://ire.org/conferences/ire-2013/keynote/
Intimidation, confiscation/destruction of property without due process, invasive surveillance and retention under 'terrorist' laws for family of journalists is a difference of degree than what happens in Mexico.
I hold the liberal Western governments to higher standards though, and see the difference in degree as being eroded more easily than you suggest.
You're still falsely equating. Even if it were a slippery slope along a line, it's still a line. Not all of the points are directly adjacent to each other.
Let me try and phrase this in terms that aren't loaded such as 'slippery slope' or rhetorical geometry.
I believe in the importance of a free press, and recent developments are troubling and lead to understandable concerns about the ability of ordinary people and journalists to discuss, report on, or investigate without undue duress, potential criminal activities by rogue agents exceeding their mandate as proscribed by their democratically elected governments.
That's stupid. Of course they wouldn't. They would require them to stop reporting on the security state. But that is vastly different from shuttering them all together.
The Guardian certainly performs a public service in a variety of other domains (from which the government can and does benefit). The security state just doesn't want the press banging around in their domain.
Let's not let the hyperbole get away from us here.