It all just sounded so implausible. It reads like someone trying to spin a story to convince others of what they already wanted to believe, or maybe that kid in grade school who tells stories he read or saw, but swaps himself for the main character.
Why should I believe this person more than any random internet crank?
I don't think I'll be able to bridge the gap by lecturing or pointing things out or huffing about journalism. But I have no choice but to try something, because I care for you and for us.
I guess what I'd say is, to keep from lecturing, it's very normal to be in detention for multiple days once you've tripped the first wire. There's been many stories like this shared, you can see some of the effects [here](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=05c894fd792d1e12&rlz=1...), no tricks, no bias, just a search for "cbp detention" in Google news.
Some headlines: ‘Like a jail cell’: Family of six detained at Washington state border facility for more than three weeks, German tourist held indefinitely in San Diego-area immigrant detention facility, Green card holder from New Hampshire 'interrogated' at Logan Airport, detained, ‘Felt like a kidnapping’: Wrong turn leads to 5-day detention ordeal
Secondly, df you read his blog, he pretty clearly is an activist, as he focuses on a single topic, has chosen a side, and also is acting upon it by protesting.
Which part of journalism doesn't involve "political engagement"? Selecting which stories are covered, and how prominently? Choosing whom to interview and deciding what questions to ask? Which details are important enough to include, and which to omit? There is no cogent definition of "journalism" by which it is not an intrinsically political activity.
> Secondly, df you read his blog, he pretty clearly is an activist, as he focuses on a single topic, has chosen a side
That is common among journalists; it is called a "beat".
> and also is acting upon it by protesting.
Hundreds of millions of people all over the world protest. 2–4 million did so in the U.S. alone yesterday. Are they all "activists"?
Also, most journalists just investigate and present stories by assembling what they found. And then they go and investigate another topic. But this person has just one topic.
I'd say people who consistently protest and consistently write about the topic are activists, yes. Do you need an even stronger definition?
You really don't want to get into categorizing speech as protected or not based on content.
"politically engaged" in this case refers to participating in the protests itself, or even taking a particular side. It's the opposite of being "objective", back when that was an ideal to strive for. Nowadays "objectivity" is being dropped in favor of "moral clarity".
>That is common among journalists; it is called a "beat".
No. Writing about resturants in New York is a "beat". Writing pieces consistently favoring one side is being an activist.
>Hundreds of millions of people all over the world protest. 2–4 million did so in the U.S. alone yesterday. Are they all "activists"?
Yes? Are you going to gatekeep "actvist" to people who are card carrying DSA members or something?