Showing posts with label Freedom of Expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of Expression. Show all posts
May 02, 2012
LAT - Full FCC Report
Please CLICK THIS LINK to read about "New revelations in a full report detailing the Federal Communications Commission's investigation into Google's Street View service are raising questions about whether the search giant escaped scrutiny for capturing personal information from millions of unknowing households across the nation."
May 24, 2011
Unbelievable But True
This morning, I nearly fell off my seat when I read this article that a friend sent to me via email.
CLICK ON THIS LINK TO READ Schoolgirl wins right to use her iPod in exams as she can't concentrate unless she's listening to music
What will happen next?
CLICK ON THIS LINK TO READ Schoolgirl wins right to use her iPod in exams as she can't concentrate unless she's listening to music
What will happen next?
September 27, 2009
BIG BROTHER STRIKES
Malaysia loves to be the tallest or biggest in something.
Now Malaysia continues that practice by trying to act like cybercriminals.
Malaysia is launching denial of service (Dos/DDos) attacks on Malaysia Today. According to Wikipedia:
Those attacks overload the Malaysia Today site server denying access by legitimate visitors.
Denial of service attacks are a cybercrime. (CLICK THIS LINK for more information)
Such attacks in effect put a wall between a site and its users.
Why are such attacks a cybercrime?
For example, a company could attack the site of a competitor. That would be in effect a business welding a shutter covering the door of a rival business.
That would not be tolerated, for obvious reasons.
The Malaysian government is committing a cybercrime by blocking Malaysia Today.
The Malaysian government is also once again demonstrating its utter contempt for civil society and the law by engaging in cybercrime.
Whatever damage Malaysia Today inflicts on the Malaysian government, the Malaysian government is inflicting additional damage on itself by engaging in cybercrime.
Malaysia Today is merely exposing wrongdoings of the Malaysian government.
The Malaysian government can stop Malaysia Today without resorting to cybercrime, very simply actually, just become a responsible government, end corruption, deaths in custody, cheating in elections, exploiting the poor and the myriad other misdeeds of the government.
Independent media such as Malaysia Today have a vital role in democratic societies, the role of keeping the government honest and exposing official wrongdoing.
Malaysians are truly fortunate to have Malaysia Today and other sites that provide receiving information from sources other than state-controlled sources.
Written by Pakac Luteb
Now Malaysia continues that practice by trying to act like cybercriminals.
Malaysia is launching denial of service (Dos/DDos) attacks on Malaysia Today. According to Wikipedia:
A denial-of-service attack (DoS attack) or distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS attack) is an attempt to make a computer resource unavailable to its intended users. Although the means to carry out, motives for, and targets of a DoS attack may vary, it generally consists of the concerted efforts of a person or people to prevent an Internet site or service from functioning efficiently or at all, temporarily or indefinitely. Perpetrators of DoS attacks typically target sites or services hosted on high-profile web servers such as banks, credit card payment gateways, and even root nameservers.
One common method of attack involves saturating the target (victim) machine with external communications requests, such that it cannot respond to legitimate traffic, or responds so slowly as to be rendered effectively unavailable. In general terms, DoS attacks are implemented by either forcing the targeted computer(s) to reset, or consuming its resources so that it can no longer provide its intended service or obstructing the communication media between the intended users and the victim so that they can no longer communicate adequately.
Denial-of-service attacks are considered violations of the IAB's Internet proper use policy, and also violate the acceptable use policies of virtually all Internet Service Providers. They also commonly constitute violations of the laws of individual nations
Those attacks overload the Malaysia Today site server denying access by legitimate visitors.
Denial of service attacks are a cybercrime. (CLICK THIS LINK for more information)
Such attacks in effect put a wall between a site and its users.
Why are such attacks a cybercrime?
For example, a company could attack the site of a competitor. That would be in effect a business welding a shutter covering the door of a rival business.
That would not be tolerated, for obvious reasons.
The Malaysian government is committing a cybercrime by blocking Malaysia Today.
The Malaysian government is also once again demonstrating its utter contempt for civil society and the law by engaging in cybercrime.
Whatever damage Malaysia Today inflicts on the Malaysian government, the Malaysian government is inflicting additional damage on itself by engaging in cybercrime.
Malaysia Today is merely exposing wrongdoings of the Malaysian government.
The Malaysian government can stop Malaysia Today without resorting to cybercrime, very simply actually, just become a responsible government, end corruption, deaths in custody, cheating in elections, exploiting the poor and the myriad other misdeeds of the government.
Independent media such as Malaysia Today have a vital role in democratic societies, the role of keeping the government honest and exposing official wrongdoing.
Malaysians are truly fortunate to have Malaysia Today and other sites that provide receiving information from sources other than state-controlled sources.
Written by Pakac Luteb
May 09, 2009
FREE SPEECH
Speech by Erica Jong ACLU Biennial Conference New York City - June 22, 1995
You know, I want to speak to you today about the creative imagination and censorship and why censorship is such a dire threat to creative people. But first I want to define some terms. I think that one of the reasons that we are embroiled in this tremendous argument about censorship and where we are vis-a-vis censorship, the so-called Communications Decency Act that is being floated in the Congress of the United States, is because we live in a time when we have a very diverse population.
And interesting enough, calls for censorship always increase when the population is extremely diverse and different standards prevail. This is almost a given: When you have an elitist or traditional society in which everybody agrees about who gets access to stuff, you don't have calls for censorship. They only occur in a society in which there are many different groups struggling for a place and trying to figure out whose word goes.
So it's very interesting. It's almost a product of the diversity of our society that we have these new calls for censorship. And I think, although it seems very depressing some days to open the paper and see so many of the things that we've fought for going down the drain, it's in a way a symbol of how much we have reached people, that there should be a worry about pornography on the internet, too free an expression of ideas and so on. So maybe there is a little bit of hope here.
Forty years ago Margaret Mead, who wrote beautifully about so many things that were not in her anthropological purview, supposedly said that censorship would always increase in a pluralistic democracy as each group warred with the other, trying to figure out who had the right to be on top and who had the right to say what other people could speak about.
I think we live in a time where the freedom to publish sexually oriented material is increasingly coming under attack. Large publishing conglomerates increasingly control all means of communication and the forces of cultural reaction are becoming extremely well organized. The brief cultural glasnost that we enjoyed in the sixties is already beginning to seem quaint. And when you think about this century and you think that it's the century that started with The Wasteland, with Prufrock, with Ulysses, and with great fights to liberate literature, which came to fruition just about 1962 when the Supreme Court liberated Tropic of Cancer.
And then, in the sixties, a time that we all remember, probably well, there was a moment when literature all over the world was changed by the release of Tropic of Cancer. Suddenly authors didn't have to shut the bedroom door when they wrote about sexuality. Suddenly, the tremendous force and passion of sexuality inspired the whole culture and created a kind of exuberance that went to other areas as well.
But that period of time was extremely narrow. I would say 20 years, 25 years. And then there was a tremendous desire for censorship again. And we come to the end of the century, and we seem to be back in 1895. It seems that we have made a complete circle.
And now the calls for censorship are coming not just from the right, but also from the left. They are coming distressingly from feminists, members of my own movement, who believe, some of them, like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, that there is no danger in their joining forces with the forces of reaction. For example, Andrea Dworkin and Kitty McKinnon joined the Meese Commission in 1986, which was very strange.
So there are feminists who are saying: We don't care about the First Amendment; the First Amendment is sentimental; the First Amendment is foolish; the First Amendment is romantic and Rousseauish. We don't need that, a higher good is protecting women and protecting women against rape and protecting women against being denigrated in print, in pictures, on the internet and so on.
Well, let's look at that and what that has really accomplished in the last few years. Basically what it has accomplished, is it has given guys like Dole, like Gramm, a new vocabulary. And it's given people like Pat Robertson a new vocabulary. Instead of having to say now they are for censorship, because they want to keep all women barefoot and pregnant in Christ, they can now say: We are protecting women against denigration and abuse. And the reason that we want the Communications Decency Act is in order to protect women.
In other words, they have taken the vocabulary that Dworkin and McKinnon have given them and they've used it to drape their old barefoot and pregnant ideas. So they've become very much harder to counter. All those same old farts, the alter kockers in the Congress who sat there when Anita Hill was being pilloried and tormented, and who didn't understand anything, who didn't get it, they are getting up and saying: We are protecting women against denigration and abuse.
So basically, what Dworkin and McKinnon have done for the evangelical right, is that they've given them a new dialect that they can use to cloak their very, very ancient ideas. And that's even more terrifying, I think, than anything else that they've done and they seem not to understand that they've done this.
I'm not so interested in talking to you about why it's important to have free sexual expression in society, because I think probably many of us here agree with that. But I want to talk about why people are so interested in censoring expression when there are so many other problems in our society that need addressing.
I think that people become hysterical about expression when they feel out of control: They cannot stop rape. Children are raised in a way that they are not parented, they are not educated, they are not given values, there are too many of them, they are too poor, they are too ill, they are too hungry. Instead of addressing these problems in society, problems that come from overpopulation, problems that come from the breakdown of the family, problems that come from the severe inequity of financial access between races, between rich and poor, instead of addressing these questions, which are the real questions, it's easier to address expression and censorship. It's easier to get up and rave about how our society is being corrupted by pornographic images on the internet. Much easier to talk about that than it is to talk about the fact that there is inequality economically and that because there is inequality economically, we have people who are not socialized to be part of our society, and we don't know what to do about that problem, so let's talk about censorship and expression.
It is absolutely a red herring. It is total bullshit. It is like arresting prostitutes instead of Johns.
Do you remember last year there was a mayor, I believe it was in Miami, who decided that she was going to have the names of the Johns who frequented prostitutes read on television and printed in the newspaper? And I thought, what a sensible idea. Rather than arresting these women whose financial lack of access has put them in this profession, which is the only way they can make money, instead, expose the guys who are using the prostitutes. Don't criminalize these poor women.
It never lasted very long. It spread to a couple of other cities, but basically it didn't last very long. And we have a perfectly analogous situation, for example, in the whole debate about pornography. If criminal acts are perpetrated when pornography is made, if a child is injured, if a woman is drugged and raped during the making of a pornographic film, why not arrest these guys for rape or for child molestation. We have plenty of laws on the books that protect against rape and child molestation.
But, no, that would mean that we were going to come down on organized crime, which basically profits from pornography, and that's too hard. Perhaps it's too hard because organized crime basically contributes to the PAC funds of the people in the Congress. Who knows why? Maybe it's too hard to do that. Better to jump on expression and say that free expression is causing these problems.
So look at the underside of the problem. Look at this great debate that we've been having about censorship, free expression, the internet. It's not really about that. It's not really about whether it's good or bad to have Tropic of Cancer out there so people can read it.
It is not really about any of the things that it claims to be about.
What it is really about is that people do not know how to stop the Mafia from selling pornography in which children are abused, or they don't want to do it because they profit in some way from it.
And so instead of going to the root of the problem, instead of exposing the Johns, basically it's much much easier to beat up on a bunch of fuzzy minded liberals who want to make little distinctions about what is right and what is wrong, i.e. us.
And we play right into their tendency to smokescreen the real problems, because as members of the left we're more interested in fighting each other than in fighting our real enemies. We love to fight each other. We love to make subtle distinctions and argue with each other.
And I think that we better really look at what's going on in our culture and we better look at who profits from pornography. And we better look at the laws that we already have and which ones are enforced and which ones aren't. And we better stop letting them make it an issue of censorship versus free speech, because really it's not about that. It's about economics at the bottom. It's about the fact that women and children are the lowest priority in this society. It's about the fact that women and children's rights are cut first. It's about the fact that our teenage daughters can't walk on the streets without danger of being raped. It's about a total social breakdown and it has absolutely nothing to do with expression, that is a smokescreen.
And suddenly, after having these endless conversations on TV with all kinds of people from Phyllis Schafley to Claire Short -- the shadow minister of labor, in England, who is calling for censorship of pornography because it's a wonderful way for her to get elected -- it suddenly occurred to me that this is not the issue at all. And I would ask you, as my colleagues, to please address the basic issue.
Rather than arguing with the people who would censor, about whether or not this is censorship. I would look at the root causes. I would look at the root causes of why people participate in pornography. I would look at the inequalities, the economic inequalities that underlie the system and I would address those and not be jollied into this whole argument about censorship. Because the truth is that anybody's political agenda,
if it is not your own, is obscene.
And basically censorship, once it gets on the books, is always used in that way, to politically harass the dissenter. The reason I remain a First Amendment fundamentalist, is because I understand as a feminist, as a Jew, as a woman, as a woman who has been battered for expressing herself freely in all her books, I understand the First Amendment protects the minority,
protects the dissenter, protects the woman, protects the witch.
Basically, I understand that unless you have a government of laws, rather than a government of people, you cannot protect dissent. And I understand, as a woman who probably would have been burned in the marketplace for witchcraft only about 200 years ago, that I need the First Amendment more than anybody does. And that even if I am repelled by child pornography or Bob Guccione's productions, that I have to protect those things, because essentially it's in my self-interest to do so.
So those are the terms of the debate, the way I would define it now, and I would really invite your questions.
Extracted from THIS LINK.
You know, I want to speak to you today about the creative imagination and censorship and why censorship is such a dire threat to creative people. But first I want to define some terms. I think that one of the reasons that we are embroiled in this tremendous argument about censorship and where we are vis-a-vis censorship, the so-called Communications Decency Act that is being floated in the Congress of the United States, is because we live in a time when we have a very diverse population.
And interesting enough, calls for censorship always increase when the population is extremely diverse and different standards prevail. This is almost a given: When you have an elitist or traditional society in which everybody agrees about who gets access to stuff, you don't have calls for censorship. They only occur in a society in which there are many different groups struggling for a place and trying to figure out whose word goes.
So it's very interesting. It's almost a product of the diversity of our society that we have these new calls for censorship. And I think, although it seems very depressing some days to open the paper and see so many of the things that we've fought for going down the drain, it's in a way a symbol of how much we have reached people, that there should be a worry about pornography on the internet, too free an expression of ideas and so on. So maybe there is a little bit of hope here.
Forty years ago Margaret Mead, who wrote beautifully about so many things that were not in her anthropological purview, supposedly said that censorship would always increase in a pluralistic democracy as each group warred with the other, trying to figure out who had the right to be on top and who had the right to say what other people could speak about.
I think we live in a time where the freedom to publish sexually oriented material is increasingly coming under attack. Large publishing conglomerates increasingly control all means of communication and the forces of cultural reaction are becoming extremely well organized. The brief cultural glasnost that we enjoyed in the sixties is already beginning to seem quaint. And when you think about this century and you think that it's the century that started with The Wasteland, with Prufrock, with Ulysses, and with great fights to liberate literature, which came to fruition just about 1962 when the Supreme Court liberated Tropic of Cancer.
And then, in the sixties, a time that we all remember, probably well, there was a moment when literature all over the world was changed by the release of Tropic of Cancer. Suddenly authors didn't have to shut the bedroom door when they wrote about sexuality. Suddenly, the tremendous force and passion of sexuality inspired the whole culture and created a kind of exuberance that went to other areas as well.
But that period of time was extremely narrow. I would say 20 years, 25 years. And then there was a tremendous desire for censorship again. And we come to the end of the century, and we seem to be back in 1895. It seems that we have made a complete circle.
And now the calls for censorship are coming not just from the right, but also from the left. They are coming distressingly from feminists, members of my own movement, who believe, some of them, like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, that there is no danger in their joining forces with the forces of reaction. For example, Andrea Dworkin and Kitty McKinnon joined the Meese Commission in 1986, which was very strange.
So there are feminists who are saying: We don't care about the First Amendment; the First Amendment is sentimental; the First Amendment is foolish; the First Amendment is romantic and Rousseauish. We don't need that, a higher good is protecting women and protecting women against rape and protecting women against being denigrated in print, in pictures, on the internet and so on.
Well, let's look at that and what that has really accomplished in the last few years. Basically what it has accomplished, is it has given guys like Dole, like Gramm, a new vocabulary. And it's given people like Pat Robertson a new vocabulary. Instead of having to say now they are for censorship, because they want to keep all women barefoot and pregnant in Christ, they can now say: We are protecting women against denigration and abuse. And the reason that we want the Communications Decency Act is in order to protect women.
In other words, they have taken the vocabulary that Dworkin and McKinnon have given them and they've used it to drape their old barefoot and pregnant ideas. So they've become very much harder to counter. All those same old farts, the alter kockers in the Congress who sat there when Anita Hill was being pilloried and tormented, and who didn't understand anything, who didn't get it, they are getting up and saying: We are protecting women against denigration and abuse.
So basically, what Dworkin and McKinnon have done for the evangelical right, is that they've given them a new dialect that they can use to cloak their very, very ancient ideas. And that's even more terrifying, I think, than anything else that they've done and they seem not to understand that they've done this.
I'm not so interested in talking to you about why it's important to have free sexual expression in society, because I think probably many of us here agree with that. But I want to talk about why people are so interested in censoring expression when there are so many other problems in our society that need addressing.
I think that people become hysterical about expression when they feel out of control: They cannot stop rape. Children are raised in a way that they are not parented, they are not educated, they are not given values, there are too many of them, they are too poor, they are too ill, they are too hungry. Instead of addressing these problems in society, problems that come from overpopulation, problems that come from the breakdown of the family, problems that come from the severe inequity of financial access between races, between rich and poor, instead of addressing these questions, which are the real questions, it's easier to address expression and censorship. It's easier to get up and rave about how our society is being corrupted by pornographic images on the internet. Much easier to talk about that than it is to talk about the fact that there is inequality economically and that because there is inequality economically, we have people who are not socialized to be part of our society, and we don't know what to do about that problem, so let's talk about censorship and expression.
It is absolutely a red herring. It is total bullshit. It is like arresting prostitutes instead of Johns.
Do you remember last year there was a mayor, I believe it was in Miami, who decided that she was going to have the names of the Johns who frequented prostitutes read on television and printed in the newspaper? And I thought, what a sensible idea. Rather than arresting these women whose financial lack of access has put them in this profession, which is the only way they can make money, instead, expose the guys who are using the prostitutes. Don't criminalize these poor women.
It never lasted very long. It spread to a couple of other cities, but basically it didn't last very long. And we have a perfectly analogous situation, for example, in the whole debate about pornography. If criminal acts are perpetrated when pornography is made, if a child is injured, if a woman is drugged and raped during the making of a pornographic film, why not arrest these guys for rape or for child molestation. We have plenty of laws on the books that protect against rape and child molestation.
But, no, that would mean that we were going to come down on organized crime, which basically profits from pornography, and that's too hard. Perhaps it's too hard because organized crime basically contributes to the PAC funds of the people in the Congress. Who knows why? Maybe it's too hard to do that. Better to jump on expression and say that free expression is causing these problems.
So look at the underside of the problem. Look at this great debate that we've been having about censorship, free expression, the internet. It's not really about that. It's not really about whether it's good or bad to have Tropic of Cancer out there so people can read it.
It is not really about any of the things that it claims to be about.
What it is really about is that people do not know how to stop the Mafia from selling pornography in which children are abused, or they don't want to do it because they profit in some way from it.
And so instead of going to the root of the problem, instead of exposing the Johns, basically it's much much easier to beat up on a bunch of fuzzy minded liberals who want to make little distinctions about what is right and what is wrong, i.e. us.
And we play right into their tendency to smokescreen the real problems, because as members of the left we're more interested in fighting each other than in fighting our real enemies. We love to fight each other. We love to make subtle distinctions and argue with each other.
And I think that we better really look at what's going on in our culture and we better look at who profits from pornography. And we better look at the laws that we already have and which ones are enforced and which ones aren't. And we better stop letting them make it an issue of censorship versus free speech, because really it's not about that. It's about economics at the bottom. It's about the fact that women and children are the lowest priority in this society. It's about the fact that women and children's rights are cut first. It's about the fact that our teenage daughters can't walk on the streets without danger of being raped. It's about a total social breakdown and it has absolutely nothing to do with expression, that is a smokescreen.
And suddenly, after having these endless conversations on TV with all kinds of people from Phyllis Schafley to Claire Short -- the shadow minister of labor, in England, who is calling for censorship of pornography because it's a wonderful way for her to get elected -- it suddenly occurred to me that this is not the issue at all. And I would ask you, as my colleagues, to please address the basic issue.
Rather than arguing with the people who would censor, about whether or not this is censorship. I would look at the root causes. I would look at the root causes of why people participate in pornography. I would look at the inequalities, the economic inequalities that underlie the system and I would address those and not be jollied into this whole argument about censorship. Because the truth is that anybody's political agenda,
if it is not your own, is obscene.
And basically censorship, once it gets on the books, is always used in that way, to politically harass the dissenter. The reason I remain a First Amendment fundamentalist, is because I understand as a feminist, as a Jew, as a woman, as a woman who has been battered for expressing herself freely in all her books, I understand the First Amendment protects the minority,
protects the dissenter, protects the woman, protects the witch.
Basically, I understand that unless you have a government of laws, rather than a government of people, you cannot protect dissent. And I understand, as a woman who probably would have been burned in the marketplace for witchcraft only about 200 years ago, that I need the First Amendment more than anybody does. And that even if I am repelled by child pornography or Bob Guccione's productions, that I have to protect those things, because essentially it's in my self-interest to do so.
So those are the terms of the debate, the way I would define it now, and I would really invite your questions.
Extracted from THIS LINK.
February 14, 2009
THE IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Freedom is one of the most precious possessions that we can have. For centuries, men have fought and died for freedom and this is still continuing today. As we all know, there are many in the world who have sacrificed comfort in life and freedom as a result of expressing what is in their hearts.
Freedom of speech refers to the right of the individual to express his views about matters of interest to him/her whilst freedom of the press would refer to the freedom of written word in printed form and that BOTH refer to the freedom of THOUGHT and are the outward expressions of our THOUGHTS.
George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four depicts a society where freedom of speech is denied and he argues there as to whether thought is possible without any external stimuli. (For more, please click here) The long and short of it is that distortion of facts, limiting areas of thought and expression, not only stagnates but destroys the human mind, creativity, potential and retards the development of relationship between man with himself and man with others!!!
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to hurt or harm others. Yet, some in our society who do the latter most insidiously, using others to hurt others be it in the political arena or in society. Personally, I strongly advocate that freedom should stem from a full, creative life which is satisfying for ourselves and can lead to the betterment and growth of society.
The ability to think and to speak are the two abilities that distinguish us from lower life forms. Thus, to me, the denial of these two basic freedoms is a DENIAL OF MAN’S HUMANITY!!! As long as conditions are repressive, thought processes cannot function normally.
A society that muzzles the press and the freedom of opinion may be equated with one that forbids THINKING and in doing so, will pave the way for it to stagnate. There is more to life than physical comfort and the possession of luxury items or non-essential comforts of life. Throughout the ages, man has fought and died for freedom. Like what I mentioned before, freedom of speech is fundamental to the functioning of democracy.
I opine that such types of freedom enable men to make life creative, progressive and meaningful. Stop. Think. Are we at that stage in Malaysia? Think hard.
We must remind ourselves that unfettered freedom is a chimera and can be a danger to the established order and the economic well-being of the country.
Freedom of the press (and blogosphere) must be used to bring to the fore the views of the public (and not that of the individual), whether they are critical of, or in support of the government; and it can even be a bulwark against government excesses.
Intelligent opinions and constructive criticisms should not be smothered, for such suppression can create a groundswell that is inimical to the government. As bloggers and even journalists, we must always remember that views that are inimical to the state, if given free scope, can spell disaster e.g. sowing the seeds of discord. History shows that in countries where restrictions were placed on such freedoms, the dictatorial regimes fell. This happened in India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. where the rulers insulated themselves against political criticism and this led to their death or downfall.
Take a look at what Malaysiakini reported here:
In the latest 2008 ranking, Malaysia fell eight spots to 132. Last year, it was placed 124th while in 2006, it was at 92.
Asia Sentinel reported here that :
I dream of a Malaysia where we have an enlightened government that allows freedom in communication, criticism, change and growth and that the government will always remember that by restricting such freedoms to avoid criticism to preserve a static condition, they are actually sowing the seeds for ultimate destruction!!!
The people in East Berlin courted arrest in order to preserve those forms of freedom discussed here. Deep thinkers who have freshness of thought and expression, incisive writing, fearlessness, a drive to seek justice etc. would find it absolutely suffocating to be limited by any restrictions. More important than bread or economic well-being is the freedom by which man wants to live.
To live without freedom is to live in fetters, and one’s personality should not be lost in an attempt by certain characters to force one to be subservient to a system or a person. Yet, freedom, when not misused, is a boon. With freedom, comes responsibility - responsibility in reporting, blogging, speaking and expressing our thoughts. So, the betterment of society depends on the right exercise of freedom which should not be taken away from us in any guise, rhetoric or policy.
It is my hope that the government, together with the rest of society will nourish our freedom (speech and press) perhaps to the same level as that of the British from whom we learned the principles of democracy.
————————————————————————————————
For further reading on why freedom of expression is good for us, check out this excellent article at Aliran.
Copyright © masterwordsmith 2009.
February 13, 2009
RESPONSIBLE REPORTING
Ideally, in any country that practises or supposedly practises democracy, there should be freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
I believe there should be democracy in the mass media whereby the press practise mature journalistic principles to produce reports that inform and empower the members of society thereby enhancing democratic values in the country and enabling the citizens to be informed and in the know of current events!!
The public are the customers of the mainstream media so the latter should be accountable to the public in creating the democratic expression of truth of the events as seen in the society. Is this the case in Malaysia?
Any news blackout in any democratic country indirectly shows the increased domination of that government over the mass media and the shrinking freedom of expression in that country. Some authorities may speak so much about reforming the mass media, establishing certain organizations and strengthening public service broadcasting. However if and when they do just the opposite, then the ones to suffer are the masses.
Theoretically, when the media dances to the tune of the authorities, media content would be SHARPLY INFLUENCED because the range of news and opinions would be limited, distorted and bias reporting would be more likely to occur. The MSM staff could be in a state of cognitive dissonance - torn between factual reporting and conforming to demands of the authorities. In time to come, would they be robbed not only of their ‘voice’ but also their ‘conscience’ when they cower to the demands and observe boundaries set by the authorities? Then they can all sail happily with the ruling government - in the boat populated by passengers with NO CONSCIENCE!
How can there be equal distribution of information? How can citizens grow up to be rational thinking people when we are ROBBED in broad daylight of the freedom to think and/or the freedom of expression? In the long-run, citizens of such a country would be ZOMBIES who cannot discern what is right and wrong, zombies who would have NO IDEA whatsoever of their rights and what they should do!!! They would, instead, be living in the DARK AGES as political discourses would be as extinct as dinosaurs and dodo birds!!!
So what is happening?
Simple.
If democratic principles are being compromised, chances are that freedom of the press is being MURDERED!!
An iron hand over the MSM would likely lead to the tragic narrowing of the range of voices and opinions that are being expressed in the mass media to the extent that they are reduced to the status of puppets whose strings are being pulled by the authorities.
If and when such a scenario happens, the news and information being disseminated would be ridiculous to say the least because INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING is NOT ALLOWED OR EVEN ENCOURAGED!! The media in Malaysia can never again (not that it could do that much even in the past) be a public watchdog in our country! They have become the mouthpiece and ‘hailer’ or ‘loudspeaker’ of the authorities who determine what is to be reported and what should not be reported!
Any citizen of a democratic country must realize that the health of a country’s democratic political system depends on EFFICIENT, ACCURATE and COMPLETE transmission of news encompassing the different aspects of society including social, political, cultural news. The MSM, bloggers and alternative media must realize that they are the conduits of this information and that they MUST always act in the public interest!!!
A look at the disturbing trends around the world can tell anyone that the MSM have INCREASINGLY been UNABLE and UNINTERESTED in fulfilling this role because of the iron hand, muzzle and laws that have given them the pressure to conform to the wishes of the authorities concerned!!
So tell me- what has happened?
If democratic principles are undermined, citizens would be unable to participate intelligently let alone knowledgeably in public policy debates which are usually carried out in a hush-hush manner with little publicity.
So with the loss of press freedom, the loss of freedom of expression, there could arise in any democratic country, an uninformed citizenry who have to accept policy issues AS DEFINED by the political elite!!
Then there would exist an alarming lack of representation of truth, views and voices!!!
Dear blog readers, such a situation in many parts of the world today is the impetus factor which has led to the burgeoning growth of online news portals and blogs.
Bloggers are actually filling in the gap or the vacuum left by the MSM because of the muzzle over their mouth. With freedom, there comes the whole element of responsibility.
Therefore, I appeal to netizens in the netted community to exercise caution and restraint in our writing. I keep telling myself the same thing as well. We have to practise self-censorship and always ask others to read our posts to check if we have stepped out of line.
We CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT give the authorities concerned any reason to clamp down on freedom of expression in cyberspace but we have to write RESPONSIBLY and to watch our language.
God bless you and may God bless Malaysia!
I believe there should be democracy in the mass media whereby the press practise mature journalistic principles to produce reports that inform and empower the members of society thereby enhancing democratic values in the country and enabling the citizens to be informed and in the know of current events!!
The public are the customers of the mainstream media so the latter should be accountable to the public in creating the democratic expression of truth of the events as seen in the society. Is this the case in Malaysia?
Any news blackout in any democratic country indirectly shows the increased domination of that government over the mass media and the shrinking freedom of expression in that country. Some authorities may speak so much about reforming the mass media, establishing certain organizations and strengthening public service broadcasting. However if and when they do just the opposite, then the ones to suffer are the masses.
Theoretically, when the media dances to the tune of the authorities, media content would be SHARPLY INFLUENCED because the range of news and opinions would be limited, distorted and bias reporting would be more likely to occur. The MSM staff could be in a state of cognitive dissonance - torn between factual reporting and conforming to demands of the authorities. In time to come, would they be robbed not only of their ‘voice’ but also their ‘conscience’ when they cower to the demands and observe boundaries set by the authorities? Then they can all sail happily with the ruling government - in the boat populated by passengers with NO CONSCIENCE!
How can there be equal distribution of information? How can citizens grow up to be rational thinking people when we are ROBBED in broad daylight of the freedom to think and/or the freedom of expression? In the long-run, citizens of such a country would be ZOMBIES who cannot discern what is right and wrong, zombies who would have NO IDEA whatsoever of their rights and what they should do!!! They would, instead, be living in the DARK AGES as political discourses would be as extinct as dinosaurs and dodo birds!!!
So what is happening?
Simple.
If democratic principles are being compromised, chances are that freedom of the press is being MURDERED!!
An iron hand over the MSM would likely lead to the tragic narrowing of the range of voices and opinions that are being expressed in the mass media to the extent that they are reduced to the status of puppets whose strings are being pulled by the authorities.
If and when such a scenario happens, the news and information being disseminated would be ridiculous to say the least because INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING is NOT ALLOWED OR EVEN ENCOURAGED!! The media in Malaysia can never again (not that it could do that much even in the past) be a public watchdog in our country! They have become the mouthpiece and ‘hailer’ or ‘loudspeaker’ of the authorities who determine what is to be reported and what should not be reported!
Any citizen of a democratic country must realize that the health of a country’s democratic political system depends on EFFICIENT, ACCURATE and COMPLETE transmission of news encompassing the different aspects of society including social, political, cultural news. The MSM, bloggers and alternative media must realize that they are the conduits of this information and that they MUST always act in the public interest!!!
A look at the disturbing trends around the world can tell anyone that the MSM have INCREASINGLY been UNABLE and UNINTERESTED in fulfilling this role because of the iron hand, muzzle and laws that have given them the pressure to conform to the wishes of the authorities concerned!!
So tell me- what has happened?
If democratic principles are undermined, citizens would be unable to participate intelligently let alone knowledgeably in public policy debates which are usually carried out in a hush-hush manner with little publicity.
So with the loss of press freedom, the loss of freedom of expression, there could arise in any democratic country, an uninformed citizenry who have to accept policy issues AS DEFINED by the political elite!!
Then there would exist an alarming lack of representation of truth, views and voices!!!
Dear blog readers, such a situation in many parts of the world today is the impetus factor which has led to the burgeoning growth of online news portals and blogs.
Bloggers are actually filling in the gap or the vacuum left by the MSM because of the muzzle over their mouth. With freedom, there comes the whole element of responsibility.
Therefore, I appeal to netizens in the netted community to exercise caution and restraint in our writing. I keep telling myself the same thing as well. We have to practise self-censorship and always ask others to read our posts to check if we have stepped out of line.
We CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT give the authorities concerned any reason to clamp down on freedom of expression in cyberspace but we have to write RESPONSIBLY and to watch our language.
God bless you and may God bless Malaysia!
