By: Christopher Sawin
Over 2 billion people use social media everyday to express their ideas, feelings, emotions, and even their view on the War on Terror. Additionally, over 67% of journalists use social media as a platform to report their work. But, what happens when the First Amendment clashes with the new Department of Defense (DoD) guidelines on silencing journalists? These new guidelines authorize military commanders to label and punish certain journalists as “unprivileged belligerents” if those journalists are believed to have cooperated with terrorists. Currently, the Law of War manual applies to all branches of the United States military and allows military commanders to detain journalists for any number of alleged offenses. The term “unprivileged belligerents” is not protected under the Geneva Convention and therefore does not allow a journalist the same protection as members of the military or even civilians. The purpose of this term is to detain and punish suspected spies or terrorists posing as journalists working with the military. However, with the increasing usage of social media, writing unsettling information about terrorism could land a journalist a spot as a detainee of the U.S. military.
Journalism is settled deep within the roots of the United States and is protected within the Bill of Rights under the First Amendment. Since 2003, journalists have been following and writing about the War on Terror by deploying with American troops overseas. Until recently, photographs and newspaper articles were the bread and butter of journalists. Now, social media is flourishing and journalists are utilizing this amazing technology to write and voice their opinions about the War on Terror. The DoD guidelines allow journalists to be considered members of the armed forces, individuals authorized to work with the armed forces, or “unprivileged belligerents.” Although a journalist may exercise his or her First Amendment rights if any posts, blogs, articles, or other types of reports are posted to social media and sympathizes with terrorists, however, a military commander may interpret that work as cooperating with terrorism. Rather than have journalists report about their impressions about the War on Terror, the DoD is now restricting the First Amendment rights of journalists by silencing and restricting the way they report on social media.
However, although journalists may use the First Amendment as a shield in most instances, there needs to be some kind of deterrent in place that thwarts potential terrorists from posing as journalists and working closely with the military. The U.S. military allows journalists to deploy with them overseas and grants journalists specialized access to classified material and locations that the average Joe does not. So what should happen when a journalist writes an unflattering story about terrorism? Journalists should be held to a higher standard with what is being posted on social media. In recent reports, social media has become the number one tool used by terrorists to recruit new members. Although the First Amendment does afford freedom of the press and freedom of speech, there needs to be a line drawn to prevent journalists from using social media to directly or indirectly support terrorism. Moreover, simply because journalists have access to social media and are afforded the protection of the First Amendment, it does not mean the DoD cannot set rules to prevent spies and terrorists from infiltrating the United States military.
Christopher Sawin is currently a 2L at Suffolk University Law School and a Staff Member of the Journal of High Technology Law. He holds a B.A. in Criminal Justice from Curry College and is a former United States Marine.
