Freedom of speech?
We really are something! Instead of analyzing this whole tragicomic affair involving self-confessed terrorists taking advantage of media interviews to communicate with a news-hungry public, threatening to commit yet more crimes and issuing «warnings» to the government and other state authorities, «we» – ostensibly the representatives and mouthpiece of society – argue about whether journalists have the right to «exclusive interviews» and «scoops» and about the legality and legitimacy of censoring, or at least trying to restrict, the «free speech» of confessed criminals. Are we in our right minds? Shouldn’t we rather question a society that offers excessive and provocative liberties to those in jail – by definition, a place where the freedoms enjoyed within society are restricted – that far transcend prisoners’ fundamental rights to humane detention conditions, access to basic necessities, legal aid, and so forth? Indeed, such are the liberties granted to convicts, that they are positively aided in perpetuating their criminal activities. How else are we supposed to interpret the broadcast «warning» by November 17 operative Savvas Xeros that he has another 10 to 15 comrades who are still at large? But instead of seeking a justification for these provocative decisions, we continue to bicker about the ethics of exclusivity and the freedom of journalists to «do their jobs.»
