Well, technically, the state is always judge, jury and executioner. These functions may devolve to different parts of the state but they are always part of the state.
Which is to say that any law that grants journalists more freedom of expression than the average person is going to run up against the problem of state then aiming to define journalists as "the people we like".
It's like current employment, where it's illegal to fire someone on the grounds of race but legal to fire them "for no reason at all". That situation can protect people but it's clearly rather weak.
> technically, the state is always judge, jury and executioner
Pardon me, I meant to say "prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner." In jury trials, the jury is the jury. Not the government. And in American civil cases, the prosecutor is a private citizen's attorneys. Not the state.
GDPR's structure is highly state-reliant. It's analogous to securities regulation in the United States. Any complaint triggers an investigation by the state, with the state able to bring and decide on charges and fines.
If you trust your government, this isn't a big deal. If you don't trust your government, it is horrific.
> That's not entirely true, for example SEC enforcement is usually a civil action
You are correct, I spoke too broadly.
Ironically, when discussing GDPR's regulatory structure, American securities law is my analogy. It's a high-cost structure. It deters new entrants and encourages bureaucracy. The cost is worth it, with securities, because the risks are so great.
GDPR is one way to do privacy regulation. From my American perspective, it's the wrong way because it implicitly trusts the government to act justly. But its results shouldn't detract from other fights to install reasonable privacy regulations.
Which is to say that any law that grants journalists more freedom of expression than the average person is going to run up against the problem of state then aiming to define journalists as "the people we like".
It's like current employment, where it's illegal to fire someone on the grounds of race but legal to fire them "for no reason at all". That situation can protect people but it's clearly rather weak.