Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Freedom of Expression


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Freedom of Expression Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/23/2006 4:09:12 AM   
Lilmissbossy


Posts: 81
Joined: 6/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lilmissbossy

darkinshadows, the bottom line is that nobody has the right to use violence over something that offends them, especially a stupid cartoon.  Religion is no excuse.

Have you read the entire thread?  Of course there isnt any right to use violence - (how many times does one have to say it?) - but there is equally no right for someone to provoke violence - and admit it - either.
 
What I am finding more concerning throughout this thread, is the lack of understanding people seem to have about the power of words/and or pictures.  Marketing and advertising play a huge part of our lives - and yet people do not seem to show the same respect to words as they would to a gun.
 
Without words, there would be people today who we simply wouldn't know existed - because they relied on the power of media to carry their messages.  We are on a message board where people are typing - because the words, and the images, are passing over who we are... If words aren't so powerful, why even bother coming here ?
We participate in BDSM, where some of us thrive on words, on gestures of pleasure (like smiles, hugs, a simple spank etc) to know we are pleasing someone - some thrive on name calling - and some people participate on the message board knowingly trying to wind certain individuals up or to gain the response they want by manipulating conversations.  Some use the forum, to advertise themselves - to sell what they have to give.  And some do it to try and turn people off a certain activity, incite hate of a section of peoples whos kink isnt their kink.
 
If people really have no concept - no understanding of just how much power there is behind words/images/photographs/paintings - that to me is a more scarey aspect of society than a gun could ever be.
 
The pen is, after all, mightier than the sword...
 
Peace and Rapture



words and pictures dont kill people. shooting someone because you didnt like what you saw or read is what kills people.  end of story.

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/23/2006 4:13:59 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
yes - but the gun is only the tool - just like the words are only the tool.
Guns do not kill people, people do.
Peace and Rapture


_____________________________


.dark.




...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to Lilmissbossy)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/23/2006 4:30:57 AM   
Lilmissbossy


Posts: 81
Joined: 6/17/2006
Status: offline
how many cartoons have been put in jail for murder?  figure please, i just want to compare it with the number of people jailed for shooting someone .
 
cartoons dont murder as far as my experience goes.  its when angry people dont like those cartoons that people die.

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/23/2006 4:32:22 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
Take the focus of cartoons and think media.  Then see how many people have died - or lived.
 
Peace and Rapture


_____________________________


.dark.




...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to Lilmissbossy)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/23/2006 4:40:26 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

Take the focus of cartoons and think media.  Then see how many people have died - or lived.
 
Peace and Rapture



If it isn't cartoons it is some other slight that the muslims have a problem with such as Rushdie's book. To deny that muslims don't have a problem with freedom of speach is to put your head in the sand.

I think the cartoons were infantile and their intention was to insult and would have been better not being printed because they made no constructive contribution to public discourse. But I defent the right for them to be published because censorship is a worse option.

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/23/2006 4:45:48 AM   
Lilmissbossy


Posts: 81
Joined: 6/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

Take the focus of cartoons and think media.  Then see how many people have died - or lived.
 
Peace and Rapture



question avoidance?  how many times has a cartoon killed someone?  you seem to be avoiding saying that the figure is probably around zero. because you know the fact is they dont kill people.  that comes from angry people being upset by the cartoon.

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/23/2006 4:48:47 AM   
Lilmissbossy


Posts: 81
Joined: 6/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
If it isn't cartoons it is some other slight that the muslims have a problem with such as Rushdie's book. To deny that muslims don't have a problem with freedom of speach is to put your head in the sand.

I think the cartoons were infantile and their intention was to insult and would have been better not being printed because they made no constructive contribution to public discourse. But I defent the right for them to be published because censorship is a worse option.


thats what i was gonna say, what if people in other countries threatened violence UNLESS the cartoons were published, where do you stop?

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/23/2006 3:24:19 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lilmissbossy

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
If it isn't cartoons it is some other slight that the muslims have a problem with such as Rushdie's book. To deny that muslims don't have a problem with freedom of speach is to put your head in the sand.

I think the cartoons were infantile and their intention was to insult and would have been better not being printed because they made no constructive contribution to public discourse. But I defent the right for them to be published because censorship is a worse option.


thats what i was gonna say, what if people in other countries threatened violence UNLESS the cartoons were published, where do you stop?


I was pretty upset it took me a half an hour to find the cartoon online the day after I heard it happened, because no one wanted to publish it, out of fear. LOL.

other thoughts, not related to the post I replied to.....

Really, come on isn't it just this simple. I mean here's a similiar example.

Say your walking down the street and someone yells at you for no reason. Let's say he calls you a bitch if your a woman or fag if your a guy(or whatever offensive term you'd like).

That is similiar to the printing of the cartoons. Your walking along and blam someone offends you.

To do what alot of the Muslims did, you'd pull out your knife and gut the guy or burn his house down. I don't think anyone would feel that calling someone a name is even nearly equivalent with killing or burning of homes, businesses.

A reasonable response would be to say fuck you back(or some other insult), and go about your business. (Express your self in the same manner)

Granted no one should intentionally try to offend, but at the same time, offense should be in proportion to the insult.

Neither side necessarily was right, but the reaction to the insult, was leaps and bounds over the top compared to the insult. That is to me the only point of this.

That the radicals are super sensitive to anything and will commit atrocities at the drop of a dime. You can either (A. walk around on pins and needles trying not to offend. (B. Simply continue with the present standards.

To me A. just encourages more sensitivities, why stop if violence is getting you concessions?

B. will probably cause more short term unhappiness, and possible violence.

It's the age old balance between freedom and security. If you ban this sort of thing it's a infringement on freedoms, and freedoms rarely are given back once taken. If you don't stop it, most likely tensions would rise. Either way you lose something.

My opinion is you go with freedom.

< Message edited by NeedToUseYou -- 7/23/2006 3:38:56 PM >

(in reply to Lilmissbossy)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 3:31:09 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
darkinshadows,
 
Your quote:
 
Take the focus of cartoons and think media.  Then see how many people have died - or lived.
 
The above pretty much hits the nail on the head. There isn't really any debate to be had because history has shown us the power of media, it's role in propaganda and the consequences.
 
For centuries the British and French media depicted the working-classes of both countries as animals. The aim was to get them to hate each other in order to nudge them into fighting wars with each other. The British and French working classes had never even been out of their own countries so 99% will never have met a foreigner. Thus, they could not form their own opinions - they were formed for them by media representation to the effect that when a monkey was washed ashore off the North East coast of England they thought he was a Frenchman and they hung the monkey. A true story, and shows what role media reporting can play.
 
Fast forward to Nazi Germany and throughtout the 1930s Germans were manipulated through education and media propaganda into thinking Jews and Slavs were untermensch or sub-human. The aim was to reduce the Russians and Jews to less than human status so when Hitler's war of annilihation came the German soldiers would be brainwashed into not taking prisoners as they were perceived as not worthy of prisoner status.
 
Fast forward to the US and the 'reds under the bed' image. What did the average North American actually know about the communist ideology? How many Americans had been to the Soviet Union to gain an understanding of that part of the world? I would guess not many. Their opinions were shaped by media representation and images in order for the US Government to maintain support for their nuclear programmes.
 
In the same way, media intrudes into our life everyday and an image is not just an image with no meaning - it tells a story and that is the story of the producer - in this case, a cartoonist. When the Nazi Party printed pictures of Jews as filthy and unwashed etc - that couldn't be further from the truth as German Jews were well established in German society but these pictures were constantly presented to Germans and if you are told something day in and day out it will brainwash your mind.
 
Some people take a picture at face value as they can't grasp that behind every story, article, drawing etc lies the political prejudice of the producer. Others can see these sketches for what they are and see the parallels with the cartoons and treatment of Jews in Europe. All a person needs to do is ask themselves why the newspapers that initially printed these cartoons were right-wing and they will find the answers to what these cartoons were really all about.
 
NorthernGent

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 4:17:43 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
NorthernGent - This is why it is important to engage in debate not censor the media. We are here exchanging opinions and information with anglphone people around the world. Sometimes those opinions rise above half-baked, some even attain levels of intelligence and insightfulness. It is even possible that some of the more sensible and intelligent opinions enlighten some people. What is important is that we are all politicians and reporters now, two professions that are too important to be left to the professionals.

I speak three languages and with some difficulty I have a working knowledge of a two others and read and discuss widely on the internet and when I travel. It is this exchange of views and perceptions of the world that are the best antidote for a increasingly dumbed down media. Censorship is wrong headed. Engagement and fighting with reason for ones beliefs are far more important.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 4:41:35 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
meatcleaver,

I agree entirely with your point that we need the media to provide us with information on what is happening around the world. This is the only way we can form a balanced view on world events and their causes/conesequences.

However, when this reporting goes beyond education/information and becomes abuse then the reporting is no longer justified - it is pure incitement and is certainly not educational and informative.

Everything in life is censored to prevent abuse and keep society in line with the norms expected from society. For example, a doctor will be struck off for abusing his/her position, as would a teacher or a lawyer or a policeman/woman. The rules are there for a reason and that is to maintain a civilised society. Media reporting should be no different because just like doctors, lawyers, teachers etc journalists have a duty of practice.

The problem with fighting for your beliefs rather than censorship is this - history has shown us that if a determined group of people achieve power then they can lead the masses down a certain path - Nazi Germany is a perfect example (the Germans are no more inherently racist than anyone else). Thus, the Goverment, elected by the people, has a duty to step in and exercise the appropriate censorship to make sure history doesn't repeat itself. Where there are times when information is censored by the Government because it will put the Government in a negative light then the Government is abusing it's position but it does not provide a valid argument for total freedom of speech. In contrast, it means our Government is failing us and we have elected the wrong people - a problem to be resolved through the ballot box, not by allowing anyone to say anything.

As said, and yes you were right this is my opinion, a truly civilised society would not allow cartoons to be published that were blatantly aimed at incitement. The cartoons were not educational or informative or even entertaining - it was just ugly bigotry that had a dangerous agenda. I personally think there is no room for that in society.

NorthernGent

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 5:44:31 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Wow - cant we have a debate, without getting personal? I realise its about freedom of expression, but the object of the debate is being lost through the exercise of the freedom to personalise objections to what someone said, rather than arguing the point? (ie, calling someone an ass, rather than their point!).

In reality there is no freedom of expression - we are all bound to keep our views under control through fear - whether that is fear of being ejected from our relationship, family, work, social group or fear of being subject to reprisal - down the pub, in the street etc. Unless one is either strong enough physically, socially, financially and emotionally to withstand the possible consequences of speaking one's mind, or one is sufficiently psychotic to have no grasp on such possible consequences, one always tempers one's expressions to the time, place and company in which one find her/himself. In the ideal world we could all exercise a right to free expression without such fears, but regardless of what the law is, we are all human so we keep ourselves under control.

For example, where I live I am surrounded by fit, active people of my age who have never had a job, and never had any intention of getting a job. They claim social benefits, are provided with housing and some even run a car. Over the last twenty years, whilst I have been working like crazy to provide for me and my family, I have also had to pay taxes to provide for these work-shy types and their burgeoning families. I see them pass my window every morning, with a case of beer and a cigarette on the go, whilst I have to scrimp and save. My view on these people is that they are scroungers - but could I say that to their faces? Of course not - I'd likely as not be beaten to a pulp, regardless of my right to say it and the truth of the description. (NB I refer to fit, active people here - not the sick and disabled for whom double could be given in social benefit were the work-shy be forced to work!).

Slander and libel laws exist of course too, to protect us from false accusation and description. I dont know what its like in the rest of the world, but certainly in the UK it costs a great deal of money to sue someone for either. Every weekend the Sunday tabloid "newspapers" destroy ordinary lives with ridiculous reports - "Gay Nazi Vicar Denies Satanic Sex Abuse" - that kind of thing, to sell their wares. Lives are destroyed by them but the ordinary people concerned can do nothing about the falsity of such claims because it would require more money than they could possibly ever earn to pay for legal action for libel - only the rich and famous can protect themselves. In ordinary life meanwhile, for ordinary people, only the might of their arm provides protection.

Yes, we should have freedom of expression, but that is not to say we should always use it. We have to decide in each circumstance whether it is expedient to use it. We need to consider in each circumstance what the effects might be on us and the group to which we belong. We should check very carefully the veracity of what we will say or do. We should examine closely whether such expression will achieve some desired result. We should look carefully at what effects our expression will have on others.

The publication of those cartoons failed to pass these tests. It was not expedient, it could be counted on that there would be negative consequences on the west, (although they had initially been published six months earlier without such), it was not accurate (in that it equated Islam as a whole with terrorism), it achieved no desired result unless what was desired was to deliberately cause offence, it only added to the anger of Muslims in general towards the west. There was and is a right to publish and say what one wants, but one has to be responsible about it.

As for the nazis and anti-Semitism, firstly can we all agree a convention never to capitalise "nazi" please? The nature of that perverted philosophy does not warrant such respect. (NB I capitalised above as a headline quote!)

Anti-Semitism, or more accurately anti-Judaism, began centuries before Hitler. It was prevalent, to greater or less degrees throughout Europe, including Britain and Germany, as a function of Roman Catholicism and thence those forms of churchianity which replaced it in Protestant regions. The basic premise is that Judas (a Jew) betrayed Jesus, and then the Jews of Jerusalem opted to have him executed when they had the choice of having him released. The blood of the saviour is therefore on the hands of the Jews and they are to be accursed for it, as one of the gospels tells us. That the mission of Jesus could not have been achieved without his death, that it was the Romans who actually did the deed, that the whole plan was executed according to the will of God, does not come into it of course LOL! Thus it became the religious duty of christians to follow up on the accursing by treating the Jews with disdain as a minimum, ranging up to genocide perhaps as a maximum. Hitler was not the first to do this - check out English history for some examples.

In Germany, many Jews considered themselves German and were indeed integrated into much of life. They had fought with bravery for Germany in the first world war. However, the undercurrent of hate for the Jews was there nonetheless and required only the circumstances of the inter war years and the easy answers of a man like Hitler to be kindled into something more. The same undercurrent existed in Britain at the same time after all - even Jews from Germany fleeing the abuse there, were faced with governmental and social prejudice.

That such an undercurrent has mainly now disappeared in Britain, (apart from amongst the far right nazi wannabes), along with majority Christianity, is a welcome development. I wonder whether such an undercurrent survives in the US, where church attendance is still high? Not to accuse, just interested!

regards
E










(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 6:37:27 AM   
LotusSong


Posts: 6334
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Domme Emeritus
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

I do think the most major point of all is that no matter how offended your religion may be, or you personally, if your God is more offended by a cartoon than he is by you taking someone's life, he doesn't deserve your worship in the first place.


Applause!!!  Excellent point!

_____________________________

Life Lesson #1

I'm not your type.
I'm not inflatable.


(in reply to EnglishDomNW)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 7:23:17 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
Lady Ellen,

I agree with most of what you say. Unless, I have completely misunderstood the point you're making it seems we agree that what is important here is a) the fact that society needs laws (including speech) to maintain a civilised society and b) in terms of the cartoons, the intention and the implied meaning are the key issues here.

Where I disagree is to what extent the cartoonist and right-wing newspapers achieved their aims. They fully understood the reaction that would come from Islamic extremists and that is what they wanted in order to paint all muslims as lunatics and stoke the fires of tit-for-tat hostility. Hence, they got their wish - increased anti-muslim sentiment based on the actions of Islamic extremists - for proof, look no further than this thread - i.e. attempting to justify bigotry and incitement due to extremists who by and large do not represent Islam.

Also, I think you're over-estimating this "undercurrent of hate". Yes, there was anti-semitism but Jews were prominent in all areas of life from banking to media to the theatre. There is a quality academic book by Ian Kershaw which charts the life of German Jews in a 1000 year period leading up to the Second World War and his conclusion based on all the available evidence is that the German Jews thrived and this would not have happend if such an under-current of hate existed.

A good post though on why freedom of speech needs rules - just like any other area of life and society.

NorthernGent


(in reply to LotusSong)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 7:37:54 AM   
EnglishDomNW


Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline
Who do you feel should be in charge of defining those rules, NorthernGent, the majority? 

I'm just curious as to who gets the job of saying "You can say this but you can't say that"? 

As far as I can see, freedom of speech already has rules.  The laws of the country you're in when you speak. 

I'm not sure I follow where you want to limit the speech of something that isn't illegal, however distasteful it is to you personally.

< Message edited by EnglishDomNW -- 7/24/2006 7:44:41 AM >


_____________________________


"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 8:00:18 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
Yep. Who has the right to say what can and can't be said? The government? Would you want a government telling you what you can and can't say?

Well let's all join in. Altogether now.....................

Horst-Wessel-Lied (Horst Wessel's Song)

Die Fahne hoch, die Reihen fest geschlossen
S.A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt
Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen
Marschier'n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit

Die Strasse frei den braunen Bataillonen
Die Strasse frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann
Es schau'n aufs Hakenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen
Der Tag für Freiheit und für Brot bricht an

Zum letzen Mal wird nun Appell geblasen
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit
Bald flattern Hitler-Fahnen über allen Straßen
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur mehr kurze Zeit

Die Fahne hoch, die Reihen fest geschlossen
S.A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt
Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen
Marschier'n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit
(English translation)

The flags high, the ranks tightly closed,
The S.A. march with silent solid steps.
Comrades shot dead by Red Front and reaction,
March in spirit within our ranks.

Clear the streets for the brown battalions,
Clear the streets for the SA man.
Already millions are looking to the swastika full of hope.
The day of freedom and bread is dawning.

For the last time the rollcall has sounded,
We are all ready for the fight.
Soon Hitler flags (will) fly over every street;
Slavery will not last long now.

The flags high, the ranks tightly closed,
The S.A. march with silent solid steps.
Comrades shot dead by Red Front and reaction (i.e. reactionaries),
March in spirit within our ranks. (a)

(in reply to EnglishDomNW)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 8:46:30 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
meatcleaver,

You're talking about a corrupt Government and it's corrupting influence. I'm talking about the principles of Government. They are not one and the same.

NorthernGent

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 8:58:00 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
But they are the same thing. Principles are one thing, reality is another.  You can't trust a government with freedom of speach. Many governments reach power full of ideals and end under the cloud of corruption trying to manipulate the public to stay in power. They are just not to be trusted with something as precious as freedom of speach.. It is much better that the population police themselves. There is no ideal solution to people taking advantage of their freedoms but to let government and lawyers decide what is free speach is definitely a no, no, no, in my book.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 158
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 9:39:08 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
meatcleaver,

We are chatting about what constitutes freedom of speech, whether or not it has limits etc. This is principle/theory/philosophy, whatever you want to call it.

Whether or not a Goverment can impose those limits is a different discussion altogether.

You have moved away from what constitutes freedom of speech to whether or not it can be imposed upon the population. You are also using an extreme form of Government as an example.

Also, every group in society has a governing body. Think of a business - could it run itself with no Board of Directors to co-ordinate and control? A business needs direction towards achieving the objectives of the business. In the same way, society needs direction towards achieving the goals of society - one of these being civilisation.

Hence, a group has to direct society to achieve the objectives of society and we know that group as Government. You have picked an extreme form of Government and, granted, there are many corrupt Governments around the world including our own. However, this is Government failing us in practice - it doesn't mean that the concept of Government is flawed.

Ultimately, this governing body that society needs must, through it's powers, educate us on civilisation. Part of this education is manners and respect - not bigotry aimed at incitement. A core rule of Government is to care for all of it's citizens and breed the conditions for us to thrive - if you're saying you don't believe Government can do this then your arguing against an established form of co-existence for thousands of years.

Personally, I would prefer it if we could stay on the topic of whether or not freedom of speech has limits and then move onto how can those limits be imposed as we're just skimming the surface of both and moving around all over the show.

NorthernGent




(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 159
RE: Freedom of Expression - 7/24/2006 10:00:16 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
The thing is, we're human and so are our politicians. We can all be manipulated and we are all manipulated in one way or another, just as we manipulate others in our own lives to get what we want - a pay rise or new job, a cheaper deal on that new car, our favoured birthday gift. The difference with politicians is that they manipulate the public at large to get what they want - re-election, and the public manipulate them through pressure groups and media coverage of their failures to get what it wants.

Personally I'd rather be manipulated by democrats, even if they are mainly corrupt, cynical and subject to extraneous influences (trade unions, religious types, big business, US presidents etc), and be able to manipulate them through their fear of what we all do with our votes, than have AK47 politics from either or both sides.

Having slated the Sunday tabloids here in the UK, I will now say that our first line of defence against the excesses of politicians is the media. I cant comment on the situation in the US, but in the UK we have independent media in the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 on the television and radio and we also have some good newspapers that are not afraid of questioning, lampooning and criticising the government. Of course there is sometimes strong editorial influence over exactly what the independent TV and radio report but in general its neutral and facts rather than opinions. The newspapers are a different story, being in the hands of private individuals and subject to their owners' political flavour in how they report - but still, if one reads the heavyweight newspapers - Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian etc - one can discern the facts for oneself. Besides the freedom of expression we all have, the freedom of the media is vital to guard ourselves against the idiot faction - though again this must be controlled by reference to the common sense responsibilities I raised in my previous post.

Whenever a government tries to restrict free expression by its citizens or by its media, it does it for one reason only - fear. On the one hand, it could be fear of criticism leading to its downfall - which is totally unacceptable. If its a rotten court, it must go. On the other hand it could be for fear of revealing information which could be used by enemies of the country against the national interest - this is acceptable. Again, as I outlined before, it comes down to the tests I gave for how to decide whether and what to say. In the end, we elect and place our trust in these people to run the place, and if we are then to say that we dont trust them to make such distinctions in the interests of all of us, then how we can have an organised society at all? As long as the media can be trusted to scrutinise government decisions and to let us know (as in the case of Dr David Kelly) that something stinks, then that is probably the best we can get.

For the benefit of our US friends, The BBC were disciplined by the government as far as it was able, for reporting on the views and then the circumstances of the death (apparent though convenient suicide) of Dr Kelly, who was involved in the production of the report on Iraq's supposed WMDs. Dr Kelly raised severe criticisms of the intelligence, which seemingly was invented and fitted to suit the need for war, and gave an interview on it to the BBC. He was then allegedly disciplined by the government department where he worked and some days later was found dead - amazingly from a single wound in his wrist from a penknife - a wound which as any suicide attempter could tell you, would be insufficient to result in death. The BBC was investigated and disciplined, but I for one could read between the lines of what little they reported afterwards - the BBC had strayed over the line of what the government wanted reporting on its "dodgy dossier", as had Dr Kelly.

It could be said that the government was right in this - it does not do for one's security specialists to be divulging state secrets on television, and the BBC should have known better or at least checked before broadcast. However, the sincere and serious concerns of Dr Kelly and many others in that department about the alleged falsification of documents designed to justify a war of aggression, were also important matters that the public should have known. As things have turned out, there have not been any WMDs found, so Dr Kelly was right to have brought this likely result to public knowledge as it would have prevented the mess we are now stuck in, and who knows, were it not for his untimely and convenient death and he had been allowed to tell all, we might not now be in that country.

We live in democratic societies and whilst its easy to isolate cases where we have been misled and even violated by the government in so many ways, we should also be grateful that we can criticise them and vote them out. A discussion such as we have had here would see us all rounded up and shot in many countries. Our democracies are not the finished article either - they are a continuous work in progress to refine and improve the way things are run, we should perhaps do better to use positive as well as negative criticism of what they do and how they do it? They are people too, and they make mistakes and do stupid things - it is only when they break the rules that questions should be asked, and that when our freedom of expression comes to the fore, and why it has to be defended at all costs but also exercised in the right way.
E






(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 160
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Freedom of Expression Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094