
23 Jul 2014: Summary of the Human Rights Council panel discussion on the safety of journalists
On the question of who could be considered a journalist, the High Commissioner confirmed that, from a human rights perspective, all individuals were entitled to the full protection of their human rights whether the State recognized them as journalists or not; whether they were professional reporters or “citizen journalists”; whether or not they had a degree in journalism; and whether they reported online or offline. In this context, she reminded the Council that the Human Rights Committee had, in its general comment no. 34, defined journalism as “a function shared by a wide range of actors, including professional full-time reporters and analysts, as well as bloggers and others who engage in forms of self-publication in print, on the Internet or elsewhere”.
She also drew the attention to General Assembly resolution 68/163, in which the Assembly acknowledged that journalism was continuously evolving to include inputs from media institutions, private individuals and a range of organizations that seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, online as well as offline, in the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression, thereby contributing to shape public debate. The High Commissioner therefore urged States to approach the issue under discussion from a human rights perspective, and to protect journalists and other media workers in the broadest sense.
Full paper here: https://www.refworld.org/docid/53eb46d34.html

Judges are not Luddites.
Luddites only resisted change. That of itself is not inherently bad. A legal system however that is corrupt and jails and or suppresses political opposition and freedom of reporting is inherently bad. It is the hall mark of a gangster state.
And let us make no mistake Scotland is a modern gangster state.
LikeLiked by 2 people
thank you for the correction I’ll try to remember.
LikeLike