Post by Kellopalopalis on Jun 9, 2004 0:41:55 GMT -5
I'm not sure why, but I was reminded of something that's been bothering me. Is anyone else troubled by recent censorship in the media (ie. Howard Stern) I don't listen to his show, but people have the right to hear it. Is "decency" more important than freedom of speech? (And it seems as well that false promises of security are becoming more important than openness in our society. [Just refer to the Liberal Media thread for a taste] When asked about the analogy of the war in Iraq to the Vietnam War, Pres. Bush said "I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy." Is that message the truth? Even if it is not the truth, this sounds like propoganda. I wasn't aware the press was here to "send the right message to our troops and the enemy (and to the public)." That message must be propaganda. Enough rambling. I didn't mean to start talking about this subject; I should get some sleep...)
down with censorship. everything is propaganda. dont believe anyhing you read or see. in fact what you are reading right now is a complete lie, or is it the truth. you decide.
Post by stinkyhippies on Jun 9, 2004 9:23:09 GMT -5
A distinction, if you please. Censorship is an act that curtails a person's right to express certain views or say certain things as protected buy the Bill of Rights. However, censorship is ALSO the act of making an expression approriate to the media that carries it.
Howard Stern has every right to say what he does. Radio stations have every right to move his show to late-night only to keep complaints down. The government is perfectly within it's rights to curtail the worst of cursing to maintain the societal norm of 'decency.
Shock jocks are not being barred from expressing thier VIEWS. The message they want to get out, no matter how sophmorically banal, can still get out. However, they will have to learn how to speak and communicate and entertain WITHOUT cursing. God forbid. This is censorship, but not a curtailing of the right to Free Speech.
Bush's statemeetns about Iraq/Vietnam are patently childish and misleading. There is a GREAT comparison between the two situations, although I acknowlege there are also great differences. However, as the questions were posed, I would say the comparison holds. The press is there to report what is said. If that happens to be propaganda spilling from the mouth of our Commander-In-Chief, the problem isn't the media... it's the President.
There was a great article that George Orwell wrote about the lack of concise language in society and politics today. He wrote about how words are used without an absolute meaning; therefore the people listening/reading will think they know what is being said-however that isn't that speaker's definition of the word. Which is the intention.
Although censorship can be a benefit to a certain extent (I'm pretty sure if we knew everything the government was doing right now, we'd be in anarchy) how much is too much? Remember Stalin? He isolated villages so the people in them didn't know what was happening in the world. He could feed them whatever he wanted to and they'd have no idea what the truth was. How close are we to that? Despite our technology (the internet, radio, TV) the news is filtering what they say, what they tell us. Afterall, who has the power to shut them down or tell them what to do?
As for censoring war coverage-the Vietnam War is a great reminder of that. If the news covered the real carnage would our society approve as much as they do about the war? Especially after Bush's little "Our intel was wrong."
This doesn't only follow politics, but everything we ever see on the news. Sure, they'll telling us some of it... but what is it that they aren't telling us that could change our opinions? Just a thought.
-Boo
"We never desire passionately what we desire through reason alone." [Francois de La Rochefoucauld] -- Boolari
Post by TheSensitiveNewAge on Jun 9, 2004 22:25:48 GMT -5
I think censorship is only appropriate for certain areas of communication. Here for example, lawsuits will not fly if someone says something offensive, which is rare. This community is informal enough that we can operate by malleable, common sense rules rather than absolute laws. If someone is told to retract a comment, they can be warned and they can discuss they why of the offense rather than being imeddiatly penalized. This can be done because people volunteer to join this community and all the rules that entails. I would censor someone you used obsenities since this messageboard is meant to be either serious about NationStates, reality, or to be light-hearted silliness, not foulness and insults.
-The Sensitive New Age Dictator Nicholas the Magnificant, the Most Benevolently Evil, the Great Tamer of the Ninja-Monkeys and He Who Thinks of Really Smashing Titles
Brother Sacristan & Archangel of HOGTOF
For my service strengthening ties between Canada and the 10000 Islands.