This is fascinating. I'm in the UK and our press coverage of the trial and verdict was extremely uncritical, and I had no idea that The New Yorker had published this piece. I need to go find it now.
> Other people have received notes from police threatening consequences including imprisonment over online posts and links shared on Twitter.<p>Remember, this is what happens when government gets to control the media in the name of stopping “disinformation”.<p>Many people, largely from European countries, seem to be suspicious of American views of freedom of speech and how that prevents government efforts to fight “disinformation”.<p>Well, I would rather deal with the responsibility of evaluating information and its credibility, than to have government that was empowered to put people in prison over Twitter posts.
It's so bizarre that journalism and governments have decided that we're allowed to publish dozens or hundreds of articles and editorials rabidly supporting some official thesis, but articles opposing or even questioning that same thesis should at best be censored through official or unofficial means, and at worst lead to spurious criminal investigations and charges. Governments and justice systems are selectively giving access to journalists who are incurious scribes, and the rest are relegated to the periphery and under constant attack.<p>I think it started when the US started stretching legislation it had created regarding "material support for terrorism" into "clearly expressed support for terrorism," by absurdly playing on the meaning of the word "support." e.g. if I support your kid by cheering for her at her basketball game, it doesn't mean I can claim your kid as a dependent on my taxes.<p>Taking the side, or even considering the arguments, of somebody officially accused either by the government or some institution, has become something like "accessory after the fact" in a lot of people's minds. Accusations have become viral. Acknowledging the defense has become dangerous for journalists, unless the subject is part of a disagreement between institutions of roughly equal power and influence.<p>We're heading towards a West that officially licenses (and employs) journalists, and prosecutes people for performing journalism without a license. "Disinformation" is when you're told a lie about an official story, "Malinformation" is when you're told the truth about an official story <i>by a journalist who is evil.</i>
Comparing the discussion of the article on r/medicine to one on r/lucyletby is shocking:<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1crg7u0/a_british_nurse_was_found_guilty_of_killing_seven/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1crg7u0/a_british...</a><p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/1crie1n/interest_in_forming_another_sub/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/1crie1n/interest...</a><p>The r/lucyletby sub have lost all critical thinking ability, self-filtered for those who can never convinced otherwise about Letby's guilt, and resorted to calling everyone else a conspiracy theorist, all while insulating themselves with an embargo law that doesn't apply to reddit. It's mind-numbing.