Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Ranks 17th in Freedom of the Press
reimero writes "According to this article on Yahoo! Germany the U.S. has experienced "serious restrictions" in freedom of the press, according to Reporters without borders' first worldwide press freedom index. Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands came in tops. An interesting study, to say the least."
How long until Ashcroft DMCAs this story?
-Waldo Jaquith
... that an article about lack of freedom of the press in the US, is published in germany?
... that the US doesn't have the best health system in the world, that the US doesn't have the best pension system in the world, and, globally, that the US are not the best place to live in the world.
Of course, there are place far worse than the US. It just isn't the best, it seems.
Funny, I could swear the only reason we're so low on the list, is we have no real good 'news' to report, other than what happens in the US...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Anyone has a link to the complete ranking? Who's number one? Who's last? Actually I have a pretty good idea which countries would be located towards the bottom of that list...
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=4116
Wasn't Norway banning Herman Miller books and jailing booksellers a few years back?
Oh, you meant freedom for what the reporters could say.
You've come along way baby...
"For the average American freedom of speech is simply the freedom to repeat what everyone else is saying and no more."
- Gore Vidal
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
In all honesty, I think this is due to
[censored]
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Oh, yeah, nevermind.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
From the article The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
I'm sorry but if you cross police lines and pose a security risk you most definitely should go to jail. I don't think it unreasonable. As for imprisoning reporters who don't reveal their sources I can see both sides of the issue, but obstructing justice should have a penalty.
I wonder if this takes into account private interest groups attempting to censoring, and often succeeding, stories that speak bad of them, a la the scientologist?
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Here is their idea of freedom of the press:
A: We have the freedom to print malicous and many times false and misleading articles on both public and private citizens
B: We have the right to interfere with police investigations putting people lives at risk. Including invalidating/contaminating evidence.
C: We have the right to report secret government information that places security at risk and could result in the deaths of our soldiers and aid our enemies.
D: We have the right to put forth our own political agendas and parade our biases as Journalism.
E: We have the right to, without jury or due process, label someone guilty by inference.
I question "The Journalist" these days. Especially after the military plane in Maryland fiasco. Lets not even start with CNN and the Gulf War. Or How about our plans for our recent IRAQ plans, that was nice.
There is a fine line between the right to privacy and the rights of "journalists".
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Sorry to bother you, but freedom of press in the US has been in jeopardy at least since Kennedy's murder.
In other news, the US government is about to bomb a country for the second according to oil priorities and economic agendas. Film at 11.
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
The United States on a worldwide index of the journalist organization "reporters stand without boundary" for the notice of the press freedom only on the 17th place. "Serious restrictions of the press freedom" would be indicated however on each continent, divided the interests representation in Berlin on Wednesday with. Under the 20 countries with the "coarsest offences" accordingly next to African, Asian and latin american countries also the European countries are located Russia and White Russia. As a worst European candidate on the list, Italy landed cuts 40th Germany on rank with the seventh rank quite well off. EU-Beitrittsaspirant Turkey belays the statements according to the 99th place.
Wow, so the US arrests journalists who, y'know, break the law? Astounding.
I understand the bit about protecting sources. I even agree with the reporters (in most cases). But jumping security at federal buildings? That's just dumb.
what a surprise, another 'US is bad' article is posted by Michael.
slashdot ranks last in Freedom of users, according to me. Editor modbombin, secret blasting and such. can you post that as news?
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
To even out things a bit, please mod down any posts originating from Finland, Iceland, Norway or the Netherlands. Thanks.
--- What?
Oh, so because a few journalists have been arrested for trying to cross security lines at official buildings, this is how they 'punish' the US, by giving a bad rating?
Cmon, if a cop or an MP says "No journalists allowed", you deserve all that you get if you try to defy them. "Freedom of press" doesn't mean "Universal Access".
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
Crossing security lines at official buildings is illegal. I don't see how being prosecuted for this is such an important factor in the descision.
While I feel that reporters should not be prosecuted for refusal to reveal sources, the crossing of SECURE LINES is ridiculous.
I would also like to point out that the US is in the 10th position as the other countries were tied for their spots.
Not to say that the US doesn't deserve its rating, just pointing out some things from the article.
Organizations like Reporters Without Borders always have some sort of political slant to them, regardless of what their official position is. (The fact that the site's hosted out of France might give you a hint which way they might lean.)
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court.
Journalists being arrested (and, most likely, promptly released on bail) because they refuse to release their sources. That's fine. That means our legal system is still working to determine the precise weight of journalistic freedom against a victim's right to a fair trial.
Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
So? If they were trespassing on high-security areas of government bulidings, what the hell did they expect?
I hope the Slashdot audience will take two seconds to look at this ranking critically and realize exactly how little it really means. America still guarantees an degree of freedom of speech and freedom of the press that even many European countries don't enjoy.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
If US was somehow ranked number 1 in the list, would that motivate the media at ALL to represent stories in a fair and unbiased perspective? Or would they continue on with their trend of digging up dirt on anyone and everyone in the public eye, all in the name of increasing ratings?
But instead of course, they'd dig up dirt on more secretive events.
It'd be like complaining about a carton of sour milk when one has a lactose intolerance..
What does this say about the Canadian Government (whom I work for) when I try to access the 'Reporters without borders' site and get a message from the firewall saying that this site is forbidden by a rating check. Well, wherever Canada fell on the list, better knock us down a spot or two.
Finland has the most press freedom in the world. Did you know that Finland is also the country with the least corruption? in the world?
Oh the mighty hordes
Trample a server so small
Please post a mirror
now if only I could spell...then my speech would perhaps be worth more than $0.02
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F %2Fde.news.yahoo.com%2F021023%2F286%2F4ewv.html&la ngpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flan guage_tools
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp
And I'm not totally sure about Norway being that good. For instance, hardcore porn is banned in Norway.
You will also get a slap on your fingers if you publish and publically distribute racist material. I'm not sure of the limit, but "White Election Alliance" (directly translated from "Hvit valgallianse") a neo-nazi, racist political party got a fine and a slap on their fingers for distributing a policical program that asked for the sterilization of all adopted kids from third world countries.
I'm generally pretty happy with the freedom here though, but it's not like it is "anything goes".
We do NOT however ban bad language from public television. If people want to say "fuck", or the norwegian translation "pule" on the air, they are perfectly entitled to do so.
Reporters without Borders is censored at my work. Nice irony. =)
Again, Canada Outranks our neighbours.
in honour of that, Ill tell a little joke:
God, speaking to one of his underlings after the creation of the earth is pointing at some of its wonders. God says, "oh, and this is Canada, it will have a democratic and peacefull native people, it will have unequalled natural beauty, Mountains, seashore, Wild places like nowhere else... later, a great nation will be formed there. One of peace, tolerance, dialogue and understanding. They will not make wars with their enemies, they will appeal to man's good nature. They will care and respect one another. These Canadians will have the respect of other great peoples, but be humble and honest -- respectfull and mindfull of the virtue of others.
to which, God's pion replies "Well, I wonder God, Is it wise bestowing all these great gifts on a single place -- on a single people?"
God replies "well, its not as simple as it looks, wait until the you see the Assholes I put next to them.
Badda-Bing, Ill be hear all week, tip your waitress.. try the Lasagna.
In what other countries that are supposedly better than us are the press free to walk out into public with a Swastika armband, yell "HEIL HITLER" at the top of your lungs, and give the Roman salute?
Norway, among others.
Going to a more serious matter, which of those European countries would allow a true report on the pernicious effects of uncontrolled illegal
immigration?
Norway, among others.
Je ne parle pas francais.
It would have been interested to see if there is a copy of these ratings pre-september 11th. I'm not sure if an entire countries freedom of the press should be based on the single most catastrophic to happen to it in recent history.
Look at the First place: Finland,Iceland, Norway, Netherlands
:-) On the other hand, China and North Korea have really been in the news lately, and yet they have the least press freedom within recently.
Seems like the countries with the most "free" press are the countries without too much news to report in the first place. Since when did those countries have any interesting news event take place there?
I guess if you don't have any news to report, not really a problem having a "free" press.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
1. There are more than 200 nations in the world.
/. think.
2. We're 7th? whoopee
3. we actually have things to report.
when was the last time anyone gave much of a hoot about the news from finland?
ok before you assume I'm trolling lets stop and think about it. come on
the US is a controversial country. finlan, i think, is not. the US gov perpetrated the Pentagon Papers the Washington Post reported it.
point? we have more thats not worth reporting but more sensitive to reporting.. do you get what I'm saying? I'm pretty sure that if the government of Finland was involved in as many sticky wickets as the US they would be a bit quick with the red pen too.
ok. flame as you please. I'm used to it.
-
.. and they're oh-so objective they are when it comes to America.
"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings"
I've always wondered why the fuck a little piece of index card with the word "PRESS" stuck into the band of your fedora should entitle you to go anywhere, and do anything.
Anyways, realize that these countries are just listed in arbitrarily.
I mean, in Canada they don't allow camera's into the courtroom. Nor does it allow reporting on the action of what the government deems "hate groups". Hear no evil, see no evil. But that didn't seem to hurt their rating.
Frankly, given the number of countries in the world, 17 isn't all that "poor", even by these guy's "pull it outta our ass" standards.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Obviously the Enquirer did not make the list or the US would be No. 1. The Enquirer freely prints anything about anybody with wild abandon, anything is fair game - no censorship here, no sirree bob.
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
Europe is much more restrictive of press than the US.
The EU is about to put forth a plan making it a crime to say anything that offends Gays or Religions. Books in Canada were destroyed and a man was arrested because those books said that Israel had a right to exist and they considered that it too inflammitory. Swizerland is about to change their constitution for this.
England recenlty arrested a professor for calling Muslims backward during a heated arguement with a muslim student who said that Americans deserved to die and Osama Bin Laden was a great man.
If you ever look at EU, you will see them daily condeming Israel for the slightest reaction. They even want to rebuild suicide bombers houses. They have pumped billions into the palestinian authority without every checking it out because journalists are scared of being arrested.
This is a pretty useless study and Slashdot overreacted to it as it usually does whenever somebody mentions free speech, Anti-US, and anything that involves computers.
Furthermore, I'd say that quite a few countries with what appears to be high levels of press freedom to me (such as the United Kingdom and Hong Kong) ended up scoring below the US in any case. This could be a situation where you really don't start to get that bad until you pass like 10 points (the lowest countries are in the 90s on their scale!), which wouldn't happen until level 30. So it doesn't look like it's that horribly anti-US biased, it just looks like it's tracking a number of things that we don't usually look at in terms of press-freedom.
If anything, the survey is a little flawed because it seems to treat an arrest of a journalist as an arrest of a journalist, regardless of reason. Imagine that I write for a newspaper (let's say it's a revolutionary Maoist newspaper). The fact that I work for that newspaper won't get me thrown in jail in the US. But let's say I go to cover an anti-capitalism parade, and get caught up in the rioting and start throwing molotov cocktails, and get arrested. That arrest is hardly equivalent to someone getting arrested just for writing in the Maoist newspaper to begin with. I suppose the trouble is that it's very difficult, in dealing with 140 countries, to say "that arrest was political" and "this arrest was because of a legitimate journalist stance" and "the other arrest was unrelated to journalist activities," so you have to just lump everything together under the question of "how likely do you feel you are to get arrested?" Well, a number of journalists in the US apparently feel like that's possible given our laws on revealing sources, so there you go.
Same goes for Canada. They ban all sorts of stuff, at least from importation. R. Crumb's When the *'s Take over America series springs to mind.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
(Score:-2, Censored)
So the US gets low marks because they imprison journalists who won't release their sources and those who illegally crossed into security zones.
I'd like to see the raw numbers on that. I only know of ONE "journalist" (she's a book author) being held because she won't reveal her information. It's because her source may very well be enough to convict a potential criminal in a high-profile murder case. Even though the courts have offered to seal her information, she still refuses to release it, and has been held in contempt of court ever since.
Otherwise, could somebody please explain to me why the Palestinian Authority scores higher in press freedom than Israel? Even when they proclaim that there is no longer any alternative media to the PA's official line?
Wow, finally somebody whose not afraid to go and shoot government officials.
I'm pretty sure your gun only contributes to crime as the statistics prove. The only people that are afraid of gun-toting americans are the ones that want real change and go against the status quo. Kennedy, John Lennon, Larry Flynt.
Go fight a tax hike with some guns, terrorist.
Ace
I was unable to bring up the article in question, but what restrictions do we (I live in the United States) have in regard to our media? Are our anti-defamation laws or restrictions against attacking one's character the cause for our 17th place finish? Maybe it's because I have never worked in any job even remotely related to journalism, but I cannot summon up any examples of censorship in our media, persay. When it comes to our television, music, and movies, then yes, we are censored quite a bit.
The server is awfully slow, especially with the big graphic on it. Here's the almost-full article:
---
The index
Rank Country Note
1 Finland 0,50
- Iceland 0,50
- Norway 0,50
- Netherlands 0,50
5 Canada 0,75
6 Ireland 1,00
7 Germany 1,50
- Portugal 1,50
- Sweden 1,50
10 Denmark 3,00
11 France 3,25
12 Australia 3,50
- Belgium 3,50
14 Slovenia 4,00
15 Costa Rica 4,25
- Switzerland 4,25
17 United States 4,75
18 Hong Kong 4,83
19 Greece 5,00
20 Ecuador 5,50
21 Benin 6,00
- United Kingdom 6,00
- Uruguay 6,00
24 Chili 6,50
- Hungary 6,50
26 South Africa 7,50
- Austria 7,50
- Japan 7,50
29 Spain 7,75
---truncated due to lameness filter---
130 Irak 79,00
131 Viet Nam 81,25
132 Eritrea 83,67
133 Laos 89,00
134 Cuba 90,25
135 Bhutan 90,75
136 Turkmenistan 91,50
137 Burma 96,83
138 China 97,00
139 North Korea 97,50
--
Reporters Without Borders is publishing the first worldwide press freedom index
The first worldwide index of press freedom has some surprises for Western democracies. The United States ranks below Costa Rica and Italy scores lower than Benin. The five countries with least press freedom are North Korea, China, Burma, Turkmenistan and Bhutan.
Surprises among Western democracies : US below Costa Rica and Italy below Benin
Reporters Without Borders is publishing for the first time a worldwide index of countries according to their respect for press freedom. It also shows that such freedom is under threat everywhere, with the 20 bottom-ranked countries drawn from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. The situation in especially bad in Asia, which contains the four worst offenders - North Korea, China, Burma, Turkmenistan and Bhutan.
The top end of the list shows that rich countries have no monopoly of press freedom. Costa and Benin are examples of how growth of a free press does not just depend on a country's material prosperity.
The index was drawn up by asking journalists, researchers and legal experts to answer 50 questions about the whole range of press freedom violations (such as murders or arrests of journalists, censorship, pressure, state monopolies in various fields, punishment of press law offences and regulation of the media). The final list includes 139 countries. The others were not included in the absence of reliable information.
In the worst-ranked countries, press freedom is a dead letter and independent newspapers do not exist. The only voice heard is of media tightly controlled or monitored by the government. The very few independent journalists are constantly harassed, imprisoned or forced into exile by the authorities. The foreign media is banned or allowed in very small doses, always closely monitored.
Right at the top of the list four countries share first place - Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands. These northern European states scrupulously respect press freedom in their own countries but also speak up for it elsewhere, for example recently in Eritrea and Zimbabwe. The highest-scoring country outside Europe is Canada, which comes fifth.
Some countries with democratically-elected governments are way down in the index - such as Colombia (114th) and Bangladesh (118th). In these countries, armed rebel movements, militias or political parties constantly endanger the lives of journalists. The state fails to do all it could to protect them and fight the immunity very often enjoyed by those responsible for such violence.
Costa Rica better placed than the United States
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
The highest-ranked country of the South is Costa Rica, in 15th position. This Central American nation is traditionally the continent's best performer in terms of press freedom. In February 2002, it ceased to be one of the 17 Latin American states that still give prison sentences to those found guilty of "insulting" public officials. The murder in July 2001 year of journalist Parmenio Medina was an exception in the history of the Costa Rican media.
Cuba, the last dictatorship in Latin America, came 134th and is the only country in the region where there is no diversity of news and journalists are routinely imprisoned. In Haiti (106th), journalists are targeted by informal militias whose actions are covered by the government.
Italy gets bad marks in Europe
The 15 member-countries of the European Union (EU) all score well except for Italy (40th), where news diversity is under serious threat. Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is turning up the pressure on the state-owned television stations, has named his henchmen to help run them and continues to combine his job as head of government with being boss of a privately-owned media group. The imprisonment of journalist Stefano Surace, convicted of press offences from 30 years ago, as well as the monitoring of journalists, searches, unjustified legal summonses and confiscation of equipment, are all responsible for the country's low ranking.
France, in 11th place overall, comes only 8th among EU countries because of several disturbing measures endangering the protection of journalists' sources and because of police interrogation of a number of journalists in recent months.
Among those states hoping to join the EU, Turkey (99th) is very poorly placed. Despite the reform efforts of its government, aimed at easing entry into the EU, many journalists are still being given prison sentences and the media is regularly censored. Press freedom is especially under siege in the southeastern part of the country.
Elsewhere in Europe, such as Belarus (124th), Russia (121st) and the former Soviet republics, it is still difficult to work as a journalist and several have been murdered or imprisoned. Grigory Pasko, jailed since December 2001 in the Vladivostok region of Russia, was given a four-year sentence for publishing pictures of the Russian Navy pouring liquid radioactive waste into the Sea of Japan.
The Middle East and Israel's ambivalent position
No Arab country is among the top 50. Lebanon only makes 56th place and the press freedom situation in the region is not encouraging. In Iraq (130th) and Syria (126th), the state uses every means to control the media and stifle any dissenting voice. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein especially has set his country's media the sole task of relaying his regime's propaganda. In Libya (129th) and Tunisia (128th), no criticism of Col Muammar Kadhafi or President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali is tolerated.
The political weakening of the Palestinian Authority (82nd) means it has made few assaults on press freedom. However, Islamic fundamentalist opposition media have been closed, several attempts made to intimidate and attack local and foreign journalists and many subjects remain taboo. The aim is to convey a united image of the Palestinian people and to conceal aspects such a demonstrations of support for attacks on Israel.
The attitude of Israel (92nd) towards press freedom is ambivalent. Despite strong pressure on state-owned TV and radio, the government respects the local media's freedom of expression. However, in the West Bank and Gaza, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed. Since the start of the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian towns and cities in March 2002, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported.
Good and bad examples in Africa
Eritrea (132nd) and Zimbabwe (122nd) are the most repressive countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The entire privately-owned press in Eritrea was banned by the government in September 2001 and 18 journalists are currently imprisoned there. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is notable for his especially harsh attitude to the foreign and opposition media.
At the other end of the spectrum, Benin is in 21st place despite being classified by the UN Development Programme as one of the world 15 poorest countries. Other African states, such as South Africa (26th), Mali (43rd), Namibia (31st) and Senegal (47th), have genuine press freedom too.
FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
Journalists try to print articles and get sued for liabel (for printing what they researched) or get sued for revealing corporate secrets (since when is uncovering fraud or embezzelment revealing corporate secrets?) or they end up in jail for treading to close to what the government decides is "sensitive materials".
Even when they do successfully run a story, notice how the story is presented by the same slant from almost all media sources. What good does that do us?
My Russian Professor in college used to regularly speak about how here we pretended to have freedom but had none while in the Soviet Union they had very little freedom but what there was was all REAL freedom. I've heard very similar comments from immigrants from countries noted for their "human rights violations". Clearly there's a need to closely examine things here in the U.S.
....."last month a worldwide survey was conducted by the united nations.the only question asked was 'would you please give your honest opinion about food shortage in the rest of the world?'.....the survey was a huge failure - in africa they didnt know what food meant. in eastern europe they didnt know what honest meant. in western europe they didnt know what shortage meant. in china they didnt know what opinion meant...........in the middle east they didnt know wht solution meant.....in south america they didnt know what please meant.....and in america,they didnt know what the rest of the world meant........"
Fry: heh, Yakov Smirnoff said it
Leela: No he didn't.
Corporations hate bad publicity...
I guess it's more important to feed "War on Terrorism" and "Attack on Iraq" garbage to people than actually concentrate on real issues like the economy.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
"if you cross police lines..."
It depends on *where* the lines are. And *who* gets to decide what constitutes a risk.
The cockpit doors were wide open and the airlines and FAA were too damned stupid to realize that it was a security hole. So now that the cow is out of the barn, we should put armed guards around the chicken coop?
----------
Manifesto for the Peoples of the Third Millennium
It's also at At the BBC BBC
(Where it's not slashdotted)
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
we at least have a constitutional amendment protecting our rights
You might want to let John Ashcroft know that.. it seems to have slipped his mind.
...if you cross police lines and pose a security risk you most definitely should go to jail. ....obstructing justice should have a penalty.
That is a double standard right there. Did you ever think that by reporting an incident (that the police may decide should not be reported) perhaps more witenesses might be compelled to step forward?
For example, Police may decide to with hold a victims name of a murder. Someone else was reading that report, with the name censored. That person might ignore it and jsut read the next article. But, if that name was printed, the reader might be a friend of which he has seen that victim and provide valuable information. Again this is only one example and I know many others can make more.
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
When a society is not armed, the government can take every freedom and the people won't be able to do anything.
Gotta be a troll, but just in case you're serious...
I note that one of the most heavily armed countries in the world was Afghanistan, thanks chiefly to the US funding of Islamist and terrorist organizations there right through the 1980s. Basically, anyone with a penis was given free access to an array of weaponry from personal firearms to SAMs. And what happened? The central government collapsed and the country became a war-torn anarchy where the will of the strongest (eventually the Taliban) prevailed.
I don't think that the religious fundamentalists in the US will ever be able to destroy the federal authority, but I note with interest a significant overlap between religious fundamentalism and pro-gun...
Da Blog
"the government can take every freedom and the people won't be able to do anything"
That would explain all of those armed revolts against the government that seem to happen every other November. Oh, no, wait those are elections. Sorry, my bad.
The Freedom of Press I will ever need. If I didn't would I be able to say this:
*** !
Tell me any other country where I could say that sentence. Thank to slashdot's lameness filter I can't even censor myself
My Russian Professor in college used to regularly speak about how here we pretended to have freedom but had none while in the Soviet Union they had very little freedom but what there was was all REAL freedom. I've heard very similar comments from immigrants from countries noted for their "human rights violations". Clearly there's a need to closely examine things here in the U.S.
Um, and he was here, right?
What, do I really need to spell it out for you?
I once endured a "Contemporary American Society" class taught by an Iranian immigrant, about how awful the U.S. was. I notice he was here too ...
Bah, who cares? The report's authored by the French! Those cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys put an author on trial recently for stating in public that he thought Islam was the "stupidest religion" or somesuch, so I'm hesitant to even begin feeling chastised.
Stupid Frogs.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
"This recognition is a great honor," Prime Minister Jean Chrtien said in a statement, "but in truth it only confirms what we, as Canadians have always known: That never, in the entire history of our country, have we ever done anything that has caused other nations to pay undue notice or attention.
"Today, the world has finally recognized that Canada is the nation, above all others, that incites little or no reaction from the rest of the world whatsoever. Today, Canadians everywhere can take pride in their timid, mousy anonymity, assured that their presence on the world political stage bothers nobody."
Breakfast served all day!
As an American, I find it absolutely stunning that XXXXX X XXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XX X XXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXX!
I have heard rumors that there is new technology in use on the Internet that can XXXXXX XX XXXX XXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX.
While this technology is distressing, let's not forget that through the Internet we still can XXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX X XXX.
Additionally I want to say to the international community that here in America there are still people who XX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX X XXX XXXXX X XXX X XXXXX.
And let's never forget, XXX XXX X XXXXXXX X!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Babelfished and then cleaned up that last post: (but I don't speak German)
The United States stood at 17 in a world-wide index of the journalist organization "reporter without borders" [press release]. "serious restrictions on the freedom of the press" were registered however on each continent, communicated the [rights organization] on Wednesday in Berlin. Among the 20 countries with the "roughest offences" were European countries former Soviet republics, African, asiatic and Latin American states. Italy was the worst European candidate with a rank 40. Germany fared quite well in the rankings. European Union hopeful Turkey placed 99'th.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Considering that Canada ranked 5th and the U.S ranked 17th. I've always been under the impression Canada is more restrictive than the U.S. on those points - especially B, C, and E.
I'm sure there are other examples.
In case the article gets /.'ed
Rank Country 1 Finland - Iceland - Norway - Netherlands 5 Canada
6 Ireland 7 Germany - Portugal - Sweden 10 Denmark 11 France
12 Australia - Belgium 14 Slovenia 15 Costa Rica - Switzerland
17 United States 18 Hong Kong 19 Greece 20 Ecuador 21 Benin
- United Kingdom - Uruguay 24 Chili - Hungary 26 South Africa
- Austria - Japan 29 Spain - Poland 31 Namibia
32 Paraguay 33 Croatia - El Salvador 35 Taïwan 36 Mauritius
- Peru 38 Bulgaria 39 South Korea 40 Italy 41 Czech Republic
42 Argentina 43 Bosnia and Herzegovia - Mali 45 Romania 46 Cape Verde
47 Senegal 48 Bolivia 49 Nigeria - Panama 51 Sri Lanka
52 Uganda 53 Niger 54 Brazil 55 Ivory Coast 56 Lebanon
57 Indonesia 58 Comoros - Gabon 60 Yugoslavia - Seychelles 62 Tanzania
63 Central African Republic 64 Gambia 65 Madagascar - Thailand 67 Bahrain - Ghana
69 Congo 70 Mozambique 71 Cambodia 72 Burundi - Mongolia
- Sierra Leone 75 Kenya - Mexico 77 Venezuela 78 Kuwait
79 Guinea 80 India 81 Zambia 82 Palestinian National Authority 83 Guatemala
84 Malawi 85 Burkina Faso 86 Tajikistan 87 Chad 88 Cameroun
89 Morocco - Philippines - Swaziland 92 Israel 93 Angola
94 Guinea-Bissau 95 Algeria 96 Djibouti 97 Togo 98 Kyrgyzstan
99 Jordan - Turkey 101 Azerbaijan - Egypt 103 Yemen
104 Afghanistan 105 Sudan 106 Haiti 107 Ethiopia - Rwanda
109 Liberia 110 Malaysia 111 Brunei 112 Ukraine 113 Democratic Republic of the Congo
114 Colombia 115 Mauritania 116 Kazakhstan 117 Equatorial Guinea 118 Bangladesh
119 Pakistan 120 Uzbekistan 121 Russia 122 Iran - Zimbabwe
124 Belarus 125 Saudi Arabia 126 Syria 127 Népal 128 Tunisia
129 Lybia 130 Irak 131 Viet Nam 132 Eritrea 133 Laos
134 Cuba 135 Bhutan 136 Turkmenistan 137 Burma 138 China 139 North Korea
This report isn't really unexpected. The reasons are fairly obvious.
The public in the US is mainly educated in political matters by the press, especially cable media. Alternatives to the cable giants, ala BBC are not readily available. The cable media are owned by mega-corporations. It's no surprise that these corporations are interested in preserving their power through economic and political means.
Because money is the main concern, their agenda tends to be a conservative one. Hence they will:
The corporate media own american politics. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Support SETI@home
When Lebanon, a country with state controlled press, where a French reporter was nearly lynched at a conference in Beruit for the "crime" of having covered stories about Israel link(while in France) ranks in the 50's, the Palestinian Authority (where reporters are granted access based on their support of the "Palestinian narrative" and threatened with injury and death if they don't) can "score" better than Israel, a democracy.
Sometimes the self-proclaimed allies of freedom can be be freedom's worst enemies.
In what other countries that are supposedly better than us are the press free to walk out into public with a Swastika armband, yell "HEIL HITLER" at the top of your lungs, and give the Roman salute?
A few Scandinavian countries, I think.
Going to a more serious matter, which of those European countries would allow a true report on the pernicious effects of uncontrolled illegal immigration?
All Western European countries. Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one. Self-inflicted (or market-inflicted) censorship was not taken into account by this study. (Whatever information a "true report on the pernicious effects of uncontrolled illegal immigration" would contain.)
Most of their presses are so controlled by political correctness that you cannot offend anyone or anything.
Oh, the press happily publishes Hitler comparisons, even if they are politically incorrect.
Oh well...I guess all is well.
But who reads that old rag anymore?
Niether "security risk" nor "obstructing justice" is a valid reason (accding to the Constitution) for abridging the freedom of the press.
Amendment I
#!/usr/bin/perl -w$ c=142;$t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=(1 6,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;$t^=(72,@z=(64, 72,$a^=12*($_%16[ $_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h; $_=unxb24,join"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+8 4])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$r d$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d>>12^$d>>4^ ^ $q*8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^) )for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval
, 0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e,0xd6,0x0b, 0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b,8 7,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a,0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1 f,0 x98,0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91,5 ,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c,0x34,0x25,0x6c ,0x2c,0x64,0x75,x 45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c,0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95, , 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11,0 2,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a,0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0 a,0x42,0x9f,0 x16,0x5e,0x1e,0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b,3 ,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe,0xb6 ,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb,x 67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a,0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x 62,0x7f,, 0xb8,0xf8,0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1,1 d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c,0x54,0x8 5,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15,0 xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc,0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0 xf5,8 ,0x78,0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71,x bf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa,0xb2,0xaf,0x ea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
, 0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a,0x19,0x18, 0x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c,2 1,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c,0x2f,0x2e,0x29,0x28,0x2b,0x2 a,0 x3e,0x3d,0x3c,0x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38,b ,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41,0x42,0x43,0x44 ,0x45,0x46,0x47,x 5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53,0x50,0x51,0x56,0x57,0x54,0x55, , 0x66,0x67,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x63,7 c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77,0x74,0x75,0x72,0x7 3,0x70,0x71,0 x95,0x9b,0x9a,0x99,0x98,0x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c,0 ,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88,0x8b ,0x8a,0x8d,0x8c,0x8f,0x8e,x b2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe,0xbd,0xbc,0xbb,0xba,0x b9,0xb8,, 0xad,0xac,0xaf,0xae,0xa9,0xa8,0xab,0xaa,d a,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3,0xd0,0xd 1,0xd6,0xd7,0xd4,0xd5,0 xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1,0xc2,0xc3,0xc4,0xc5,0xc6,0 xc7,6 ,0xf7,0xf4,0xf5,0xf2,0xf3,0xf0,0xf1,x ef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5,0xe6,0xe7,0x e0,0xe1,0xe2,0xe3
0 x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98,0x58,0xd8,0 x38,0xb8,0x78,0xf8,4 ,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94,0x54,0xd4,0x34,0xb4,0x74,0xf4 ,x 9c,0x5c,0xdc,0x3c,0xbc,0x7c,0xfc,, 0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92,0x52,0xd2,0x32, 0xb2,0x72,0xf2,6 a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a,0x5a,0xda,0x3a,0xba,0x7a,0xfa,
0 x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96,0 x56,0xd6,0x36,0xb6,0x76,0xf6,e ,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e,0x5e,0xde,0x3e,0xbe ,0x7e,0xfe,x e1,0x11,0x91,0x51,0xd1,0x31,0xb1,0x71,0xf1,, 0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99,0x59, 0xd9,0x39,0xb9,0x79,0xf9,2 5,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95,0x55,0xd5,0x35,0xb5,0x7 5,0xf5,0 x1d,0x9d,0x5d,0xdd,0x3d,0xbd,0x7d,0xfd,3 ,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93,0x53,0xd3 ,0x33,0xb3,0x73,0xf3,x ab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b,0x5b,0xdb,0x3b,0xbb,0x7b,0x fb,, 0x97,0x57,0xd7,0x37,0xb7,0x77,0xf7,4 f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f,0x5f,0xdf,0x3 f,0xbf,0x7f,0xff
0 xb7,0x37,0xd7,0x57,0x97,0x17,0xe7,0x67,0xa7,0x27,0 xc7,0x47,0x87,0x07,b ,0x9b,0x1b,0xeb,0x6b,0xab,0x2b,0xcb,0x4b,0x8b,0x0b ,x 63,0xa3,0x23,0xc3,0x43,0x83,0x03,, 0x3d,0xdd,0x5d,0x9d,0x1d,0xed,0x6d,0xad,0x2d,0xcd, 0x4d,0x8d,0x0d,9 5,0x15,0xe5,0x65,0xa5,0x25,0xc5,0x45,0x85,0x05,
0 xf9,0x79,0xb9,0x39,0xd9,0x59,0x99,0x19,0xe9,0x69,0 xa9,0x29,0xc9,0x49,0x89,0x09,1 ,0xd1,0x51,0x91,0x11,0xe1,0x61,0xa1,0x21,0xc1,0x41 ,0x81,0x01,x 1e,0xee,0x6e,0xae,0x2e,0xce,0x4e,0x8e,0x0e,, 0x76,0xb6,0x36,0xd6,0x56,0x96,0x16,0xe6,0x66,0xa6, 0x26,0xc6,0x46,0x86,0x06,d a,0x5a,0x9a,0x1a,0xea,0x6a,0xaa,0x2a,0xca,0x4a,0x8 a,0x0a,0 xe2,0x62,0xa2,0x22,0xc2,0x42,0x82,0x02,c ,0xbc,0x3c,0xdc,0x5c,0x9c,0x1c,0xec,0x6c,0xac,0x2c ,0xcc,0x4c,0x8c,0x0c,x 54,0x94,0x14,0xe4,0x64,0xa4,0x24,0xc4,0x44,0x84,0x 04,, 0x68,0xa8,0x28,0xc8,0x48,0x88,0x08,b 0,0x30,0xd0,0x50,0x90,0x10,0xe0,0x60,0xa0,0x20,0xc 0,0x40,0x80,0x00
# 531-byte qrpff-fast, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz <sipb-iap-dvd@mit.edu>
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file on stdin -> descrambled output on stdout
# arguments: title key bytes in least to most-significant order
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;
$m=(11,10,1
-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)
=5
d=unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(o
$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)
(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t
I will begin by describing a procedure named CSStitlekey1 that uses a player key to decrypt the disk key.
The procedure returns no value. (It is of type "void".)
The procedure takes two arguments.
The first argument is named KEY, and is a pointer to a vector of six unsigned bytes. These bytes initially contain an encrypted disk key. They will eventually hold the decrypted disk key computed by the procedure.
The second argument is named im, and is a pointer to a vector of six unsigned bytes. These bytes are the decryption key (the player key) that the procedure will use to decrypt the bytes in the variable named KEY.
The procedure makes use of several temporary (local) variables.
Temporary variables t1 through t6 are unsigned integers.
Temporary variable k is a vector of five unsigned bytes.
Temporary variable i is an integer, used as a loop index.
The body of procedure CSStitlekey1 is as follows:
1. Take byte 0 of im, OR it with the hexadecimal constant 0x100, and store the result in t1.
2. Take byte 1 of im and store it in t2.
3. Take bytes 2-5 of im and store them in t3.
4. Take the low order three bits of t3, which can be computed by the AND of t3 with the constant 7, and store the result in t4.
5. Multiply t3 by 2, add 8, subtract t4, and store the result back in t3.
6. Store 0 in t5.
7. Begin a loop by initializing i to 0. This variable will range from 0 to 4, and will be used to index the variable k, which holds a five byte intermediate result in the decryption of the six byte key.
8. Continue looping while i is less than 5, incrementing i by 1 on each subsequent pass through the loop. When i is equal to 5, exit the loop by jumping to step 20.
9. Use t2 as an index into the table CSStab2, and retrieve a byte, which we'll call b1. Use t1 as an index into table CSStab3, and retrieve another byte, which we'll call b2. Compute b1 XOR b2 and store the result in t4.
10. Shift t1 right by 1 bit, and store the result in t2.
11. Take the low-order bit of t1 (which can be obtained by taking the AND of t1 and the constant 1), shift it left by 8 bits, and XOR it with t4. Store the result back in t1.
12. Use t4 as an index into the table CSStab4, and retrieve a byte. Store the result in t4.
13. Shift the contents of t3 right by 3 bits, XOR it with t3, shift the result right by 1 bit, XOR it with t3, shift the result right by 8 bits, XOR it with t3, shift the result right by 5 bits, and extract the low order byte by ANDing it with the hexadecimal constant 0xff. Store the result in t6.
14. Shift the contents of t3 left by 8 bits, OR it with t6, and store the result in t3.
15. Use t6 as an index into the table CSStab4, and retrieve a byte. Store the result in t6.
16. Add together t6, t5, and t4, and store the result back into t5.
17. Extract the low order byte of t5 (which can be done by ANDing t5 with the hexadecimal contant 0xff), and store the result in the i-th byte of the vector k.
18. Shift t5 right by 8 bits and store the result back into t5.
19. Return to step 8 to continue looping.
20. This is where we end up when the first loop is complete.
21. Begin another loop by initializing the variable i to 9. This variable will range from 9 down to 0. The values of (i+1) and i will be used to index into the 11 byte table CSStab0, whose elements are of course numbered from 0 to 10. This table describes a permutation of the 6 byte key; its elements are integers from 0 to 5.
22. Continue looping while i is greater than or equal to 0, decrementing i by 1 on each subsequent pass through the loop. When i is less than 0, exit the loop by jumping to step 25.
23. Use i+1 as an index into the table CSStab0, and call the retrieved value p1. Use i as an index into the table CSStab0, and call the retrieved value p0. Use p1 as an index into the vector k, and call the retrieved value b1. Use p1 as an index into the vector KEY, and use the retrieved value as an index into the vector CSStab1; call the retrieved value b2. Use p0 as an index into the vector KEY, and call the retrieved value b3. Compute b1 XOR b2 XOR b3, and store the result in KEY, in the byte indexed by p1.
24. Return to step 22 to continue looping.
25. This is where we end up when the second loop is complete.
26. Return from the procedure.
Now I will describe a procedure named CSStitlekey2. This procedure uses the decrypted disk key to decrypt a title key.
The argunents to this procedure, KEY and im, are the title key and the decrypted disk key, respectively.
Procedure CSStitlekey2 is identical to CSStitlekey1, except that in step 15, it uses the table CSStab5 instead of CSStab4. Note that CSStab5 is the bitwise complement of CSStab4.
Now I will describe a procedure named CSSdescrypttitlekey. This procedure uses a built-in player key to decrypt a disk key and a title key.
The procedure returns no value. (It is of type "void".)
The procedure takes two arguments.
The first argument is named TKEY, and is a pointer to a vector of six unsigned bytes. These bytes initially contain an encrypted title key. They will eventually hold the decrypted title key computed by the procedure.
The second argument is named DKEY, and is a pointer to a vector of six unsigned bytes. These bytes contain the encrypted disk key.
The procedure makes use of several temporary (local) variables.
Temporary variable i is an integer, used as a loop index.
Temporary variable im1 is a vector of six unsigned bytes.
Temporary variable im2 is a vector of six unsigned bytes holding the player key. It is initialized to the hexadecimal constants 0x51, 0x67, 0x67, 0xc5, 0xe0, and 0x00.
The body of procedure CSSdecrypttitlekey is as follows:
1. Copy the six bytes of the vector DKEY to the vector im1. This can be done with a for loop using i as the index variable.
2. Call CSStitlekey1 with arguments im1 and im2. The side effect of this call will be to leave a decrypted disk key in im1.
3. Call CSStitlekey2 with arguments TKEY and im1. The side effect of this call will be to leave a decrypted title key in tkey.
Now I will describe a procedure named CSSdescramble. This procedure decrypts one sector of a DVD, which is 2048 bytes long. (The length is 0x800 in hexadecimal.)
The procedure returns no value. (It is of type "void".)
The procedure takes two arguments.
The first argument is named SEC, and is a pointer to a vector of 2048 unsigned bytes. These bytes initially contain the encrypted disk sector. They will eventually hold the decrypted sector computed by the procedure.
The second argument is named KEY, and is a pointer to a vector of six unsigned bytes. These bytes contain the decrypted title key that will be used to decrypt the disk sector.
The procedure makes use of several temporary (local) variables.
Temporary variagles t1 through t6 are unsigned integers.
Temporary variable END is a pointer to the end of the 2048 byte vector to be decrypted. It is initialized to SEC plus 0x800.
The body of procedure CSSdescramble is as follows:
* 1. Retrieve byte 0 of KEY, XOR it with byte 84 (0x54 in hexadecimal) of SEC, treat the result as an integer, OR it with the hexadecimal constant 0x100, and store the result in t1.
* 2. Retrieve byte 1 of KEY, XOR it with byte 85 (0x55 in hexadecimal) of SEC, and store the result in t2.
* 3. Take bytes 2 through 5 of KEY and XOR them with bytes 86 through 89 (0x56 through 0x59) of SEC; store the result in T3.
* Steps 4 through 6 are the same as CSStitlekey1, but add a step 5A:
* 5A. Advance SEC by 128 bytes (hexadecimal 0x80).
* 7. Begin a while loop.
* 8. Continue iterating while SEC does not equal END.
* Steps 9 through 20 are the same as CSStitlekey1, except change CSStab4 to CStab5 in step 12, and chage step 17 to read as follows:
* 17. Use the byte pointed to by SEC as an index into the table CSStab1. Take the retrieved byte and XOR it with the low order byte of t5, which can be extracted by ANDing t5 with the hexadecimal constant 0xff. Store the result back in the byte pointed to by SEC. Then advance the pointer SEC by one byte.
* 21. Return from the procedure.
Table CSStab0 is eleven bytes in length. Its elements are: 5, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 0 , 1, 2, 3, 4.
Table CSStab1 is 256 bytes in length. It implements a simple substitution cipher. Its elements, expressed as hexadecimal constants, are:
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x 3e,0x7e,0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b,
0xd3,0x93
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,
0x3d,0x7d,0x3
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,
0xb
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0
0x5d,0x
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x3
0xb7,0xf7,0
Table CSStab2 is 256 bytes in length. Its elements, expressed as hexadecimal constants, are:
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x 09,0x08,0x0b,0x0a,0x0d,0x0c,0x0f,0x0e,
0x12,0x13
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,
0x49,0x48,0x4
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,
0x8
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3
0xdb,0x
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf
0xed,0xec,0
Table CSStab3 is 512 bytes in length. It consists of 64 repetitions of the following six-byte sequence: 0x00, 0x24, 0x49, 0x6d, 0x92, 0xb6, 0xdb, 0xff.
Table CSStab4 is 256 bytes in length. It is a lookup table for efficiently reversing the order of bits in a byte. If we regard it as a 16x16 matrix stored in row major order, then it can be described as the Cartesian product of two 16-element sequences.
Define seqI as [0x00, 0x08, 0x04, 0x0c, 0x02, 0x0a, 0x06, 0x0e, 0x01, 0x09, 0x05, 0x0d, 0x03, 0x0b, 0x07, 0x0f].
Define seqJ as [0x00, 0x80, 0x40, 0xc0, 0x20, 0xa0, 0x60, 0xe0, 0x10, 0x90, 0x50, 0xd0, 0x30, 0xb0, 0x70, 0xf0].
With i and j each varying from 0 to 15, with j varying faster than i, the table entries can be described as table[i,j] = seqI[i] OR seqJ[j].
We can write out the table explicitly as:
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x1 0,0x90,0x50,0xd0,0x30,0xb0,0x70,0xf0,
0x08,0x88,
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0
0x02,0x82,0x42
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xc
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0
0x09
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,
0x03,0x8
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17
0x0f,0x8f,0x
Table CSStab5 is 256 bytes in length. It is the bit-wise complement of table CSStab4.
We can write out the table explicitly as:
0xff,0x7f,0xbf,0x3f,0xdf,0x5f,0x9f,0x1f,0xe f,0x6f,0xaf,0x2f,0xcf,0x4f,0x8f,0x0f,
0xf7,0x77,
0xfb,0x7b,0xbb,0x3b,0xdb,0x5
0xf3,0x73,0xb3,0x33,0xd3,0x53,0x93,0x13,0xe3,0
0xfd,0x7d,0xbd
0xf5,0x75,0xb5,0x35,0xd5,0x55,0x
0xf1,0x71,0xb1,0x3
0xfe,0x7e,0xbe,0x3e,0xde,0x5e,0x9e,0
0xf6
0xfa,0x7a,0xba,0x3a,0x
0xf2,0x72,0xb2,0x32,0xd2,0x52,0x92,0x12,
0xfc,0x7
0xf4,0x74,0xb4,0x34,0xd4,0
0xf8,0x78,0xb8,0x38,0xd8,0x58,0x98,0x18,0xe8
0xf0,0x70,0x
This concludes the description of the CSS descrambling algorithm.
Please note: this ranking is about freedom of press and not freedom of speech.
Hmm, I thought people who shout things like "Heil Hitler" are giving Nazi salutes. I thought people who gave "Roman salutes" tended to shout things like "ave, Caesar, morituri te salutamus" ('hail, Caesar, we who are about to die salute you').
This ranking doesn't mean anything. The USA IS the land of the free, PERIOD!
The land of the free to do things like vacation in Cuba.
The Germans have annexed France again! Send the boys back in!
Did anyone happen to read the part of the article that said that the US ranked so low partly because "...several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings".
I suppose one could argue that this is some form of censorship, but let's face it. You'd be arrested regardless of whether you're part of the press or not. The government provides equal opportunity in this area.
Yes, the press is free to do all these things ... but that doesn't mean they should. I think what you're complaining about is Press Responsibility. This is part of a much larger problem in the US: Everyone thinks they know what their rights are, especially when they feel these rights are infringed upon. However, nobody wants to own up to the responsibilities that come with these rights. People, organizations and corporations should consider the responsibilities of good citizenship as well as what they perceive to be their rights.
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
Those of you shrugging your shoulders as if to say 'big deal' should think again, particularly if you're a free-as-in-speech software enthusiast. Freedom of the press is nearly as sacred as free speech, imho, particularly the freedom to report on the activities of your own government.
All that being said, I don't see any reference in this report to self-censorship, which is pervasive in the western world. I really don't believe Canada deserves to land fifth spot in light of the continuing monopolization of the press by CanWest and the recent resignation of the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen because the paper's owners (none other than CanWest) suppressed his editorials. For more info on the Canadian situation, check out Diversity of Voices.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
At least one local paper in virtually every major city, including Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Halifax, is owned by the CanWest Global. The same organization owns the National Post, one of the two national papers, and Global TV, one of three national broadcasters. CanWest Global is owned by Izzy Asper, who is an open supporter of the ruling Liberal party and is chummy with the Prime Minister. (In most cities, the only other paper is owned by the Sun group, which publishes tabloid-quality news at best.)
CanWest Global has ordered every member paper to run unsigned national editorial, and not to publish local editorials that contradict the national line. Within the past few months, Russell Mills, the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, was fired by the parent company for publishing an article suggesting that the Prime Minister had been involved in a conflict of interest.
Fifth place, my ass.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Canada (#5), recently detained a shipment of pamphlets entiled "In Moral Defense of Israel", to examine them if their content was such that they could be legally imported. The French just tried (and acquitted, true) a man for being uncomplimentary to Islam. And Costa Rica (#15) only "ceased to . . . give prison sentences to those found guilty of 'insulting' public officials" eight months ago.
If we then read why the U.S. is ranked low (not allowing those with knowledge of a crime hide that knowledge even if they are "legitimate reporters", and not allowing people to go behind security lines even if they are "legitimate reporters"), it becomes obvious that what this site means by "freedom of the press" is not freedom of publication (which is the meaning of freedom of the press as used in international human rights treaties), but rather how far the society caters to members of the Fourth Estate.
First off the proviso: I could not get the site to load, so I do not know if it contains the information I am curious about.
.86% of Finnish journalists?
I am wondering just how far away from "#1" the US actually is. In other words, and by way of example only, did we imprison 1.3% of our journalists compared to
Are we really only half a journalist in prison away from the title, or is it 1,000 journalists in prison here to Sven in Finland? Finally, what about repeat arrests? If the same reporter keeps getting arrested for crossing the same security line, does that count once (per journalist) or does that count 3-10 times (per infranction)?
Anyone?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
There are times when curtailing the press is a good idea. The press in Washington has been speculating so madly about this sniper incident that I'm convinced they've actually identified targets for the sniper. They commented one day that schoolchildren are safe because he hasn't come near a school. A day or so later, a kid gets shot outside a school. They commented that he hasn't shot anyone on weekends, and what happens? A couple of days later he shoots someone on a Saturday. The press routinely asks for information, both formally and behind the scenes, regarding the investigation into this lunatic and won't take answers like "giving out that info can compromise our investigation or tip off the sniper as to what we're doing" with any degree of seriousness. They're more concerned about their jobs, ratings, and careers than they are in public safety.
And there are numerous incidents here in Washington where the press has leaked highly classified information (e.g., national security matters) to the public. The Washington Times newspaper here is notorious for this.
So, I ask again, this ranking is a problem how exactly? I know some people are going to say that any restriction on the press is just the beginning of wider-reaching restrictions and is the foundation of a totalitarian state. And while that might be true, sometimes restrictions are necessary, especially when the media are less capable of behaving themselves than a four year-old kid.
I haven't been able to read the article since it has been slashdotted, but one thing that increasingly bothers me is how the major news organizations are owned by a small number of large corporations. These corporations in turn have a greater say on how we are governed through campaign donations.
:-(.
E QU ALITY.html
I heard that Disney is considering a buyout of AOL/Time Warner. It would then own ABC, CNN, Time Warner and AOL. Imagine that!
Coroporate news outlets are and will be stymied when trying to report things that powerful corporations don't want reported and that's a lot of things.
This combined with the growing power of the very rich means less and less democracy.
See the NY Times Magazine cover story from this Sunday about who the rich are taking over;
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20IN
Amen...I didn't know that Finland bans firearms...well, in the US it doesnt matter...do you know how hard it is to GET a firearm here? You have to do much acrobatics that only die hards will get one..
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
Thanks for watching KXXX, fair and up-to the minute reporting. We'll be right back after this message from our sponsors. Don't go away.
Yuckkk!!!
"Piter, too, is dead."
Why should the press be allowed access denied to normal citizens? Should a little fedora with a PRESS slip in it give me top secret police access?
/expect/ the police to act accordingly. We can't expect "the press" to respect the crime scene and its evidence.
Crime scenes can't be trampled upon, and we can (or should be able to)
Nevermind someone claiming to be a member of "the press" (whatever the hell that is) sneaking in and removing evidence, planting bombs, whatever.
#19845
"Go fight a tax hike with some guns, terrorist."
So, I guess George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and the rest of the founders were all terrorists.
Without the "terrorism" of the American Revolution, the chances of slashdot being here today are slim, considering it's based in the U.S.
My wife and I are British, but lived in Boston, Mass for a few years during the mid eighties. We live in Canada, these days.
When we first arrived there, we thought the news reporting was very narrow so we purchased an HF radio, to listen to the BBC World Service. In those days, the BBC operated a very good news service. It has been reigned in a lot since -- they made the mistake of annoying Margaret Thatcher.
One evening, we heard a report on the BBC about a Bankers conference on the US West Coast. The report contained excepts from a talk given by the (then) chairman of the FDIC and contained pretty strong material. Essentially, he claimed that US banks had over extended themselves with too many bad loans for the FDIC to be able to salvage the situation.
I thought this news would be a major talking point the following day; it wasn't -- no one had heard it. As far as I could tell, in discussions with my co-workers, this news was not available on any outlets generally available to people in Boston. Several of my US friends from that time then went out and bought HF radios.
To this day, I don't know why the FDIC chairman's speech was not reported in the Boston area. Maybe the editors thought the Red Sox were more important than a major bank failure. Perhaps they simply dismissed it as "West Coast" news and therefore unimportant. Maybe the TV stations and local papers did not want to spook the advertisers -- who knows? In any event, the experience was an education.
Seems kind of puzzling considering the recent cases in past years involving Amazon.com being sued for selling a book(Mein Kampf).
:-)
Then there's that whole Germany/Scientology connection thing.
Looks to me like this ranking is particularly skewed... as long as you define freedom as publishing the official government sanctioned news, then Pravda should be #1.
I wonder what the founding father's opinon would be of it's country being just 'good enough' and 'better than a lot of people'. I'm not particularily a left wing thinker, but I guess I'll spin this to the left anyways. Having a country who guarantees freedom of the press in thier constitution lagging behind countries that have no such beginnings makes you wonder about how much the people of said country care about thier own history. It makes you wonder how much people care anymore about being free as thier own country defines it.
The press is supposed to be more than just somewhere you find out the news. The press is supposed to be an independant check on the integrity of the government and the status quo.
**Standard 'Maybe This is a Troll' Disclaimer**
Ireland in both cases. The UK. France. The Netherlands. Sweden, Finland, Denmark... need I go on?
hmmm, and islamic fundamentalism wouldn't have anything to do with afghanistan being a war torn country. Then again, they did have russia trying to invade them, so they HAD to arm everyone. We're talking about a third world nation here people. So everyone that owns a gun is a redneck? I want everyone in favor of gun control to go to their bedrooms, and three guys break in the front door. Call the police. Which guys are going to get to your bedroom first? And please, no more "if you own a gun you're more likely..." stats because the average person is more likely to stab his eye out with a pencil than write a pultizer prize winning article.
It reads not former Soviet republics, but only mentions Belarus and Russia (allthough no doubt some of the others do badly too)
It wasn't about crossing a police line. It was getting into a security area. Namely buildings.
Probably someone didn't have a dang name tag and didn't make the requisite 5 bazillion calls to a government official to get to their office. Now, because people have heard that terrorists posed as a news crew in North Afghanistan, they don't escort you out over clerical errors, they start freaking out, and that freak out might throw your ass in jail.
I know this sounds ridiculous, but as a journalist in the US, it is nearly impossible to get in touch with a person in the US Govt if they don't contact you first. You sure as hell can't pop by their offices without some rent-a-cop giving you hell about it, or worse. So you see, this listing might not take those factors into account.
Even something as benign as a grain price advisory board is locked up in some big ass building that makes you feel like you're playing Splinter Cell to just get a call back.
Here's the scenario, you know someone that hasn't been honest in the gov't. Well, you're screwed. You don't know their home address and they won't return your call. Worst of all, you can't get to their office to even talk to them because they are at the top of the big government building to get a hold of them. The rent-a-cop is calling them as soon as you walk in the door and escorting you out like a criminal even faster. So if you even need to talk to someone in the Gov't at all AND THEY HAVE AN INKLING THAT YOU ARE AFTER THEIR IMPROPRIETY, you're screwed.
Some days you have to just grow a pair. A lot of journalists do.
So here is how most of that goes:
"Hi, Mister Comptroller. I'm from the news, you know, the group that has been calling you for weeks about you stealing from the government. Care to talk about the fact that you have been locking yourself in this office and the grand jur-"
"Security!!!"
There is an old news addage (now this is just s humourous statement so clam down people) that says that "if you haven't been thrown in jail, you aren't doing your job right."
Trust me, its a joke.
Oddly enough, he won't actually limit your right to own sniper rifles. Welcome to Bush's America, where the only Amendment that counts is the 2nd.
So what exactly makes our Freedom of the Press that limited?
My suspicion is not so much that press is limited, or that information is censured, but rather the bias in the distribution.
Take books; these are fairly conservative in nature. Liberal view points don't sell as many books as conservative view points do. Take telvision and radio; these are fairly liberal in nature. Conservative view points aren't expressed as readily as liberal view points are.
The problem stems from the fact that each group views itself as the normal. That is, liberals don't think they're THAT liberal. Conservatives don't think they're THAT conservative. So, to be "fair", they extend a little to the left, and a little to the right when reporting.
On a normalized scale, this means we really _are_ getting biased data. For instance, when a Republican is in office, we have a homeless problem. When a Democrat is in office, we don't have a homeless problem. Given the number of homeless stays the same, what's changed -- that's right, what gets reported. Suitable examples exist for the other direction.
So, my bet is that it's the selection of the news that gets printed, rather than the prevention of printing news.
Here's the Yahoo article after the Fish did it's work and I use my limited German skills to clean it up:
Wednesday 23 October 2002, 18:59 o'clock
The USA on the Index For Press Freedom ranks only at 17th place(AFP). The United States stand at 17th place on a world-wide index by the journalist organization "Reporter Without Borders" for the attention of the press freedom only. "Serious restrictions of the press" were registered however on each continent, communicated the protection of interests on Wednesday in Berlin. Under the 20 countries that have the "worst offences" also include the European countries Russia and White Russia are beside African, Asiatic and Latin American states. As a worst European country candidate on the list is Italy and landed at the rank of 40. Germany fares with severe rank quite well. [European Union Beitrittsaspirant] Turkey occupies according to the data in the 99th Place.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out the US press has been controlled much more since 911. With a possible war coming up the propaganda machines are at full warp. I would say the control is put on about 80% of what we see on a place like CNN.
Easy enough to go to web sites of other countries to get differing view though.
PIRA has not killed any journalists in a long time, in fact I cannot remember when they ever did.
Try to buy a copy of Mein Kampf in Germany, next time you are over there.
The authors of this list obviously do not understand what Freedom of the Press means.
...anyone who responded to the survey.
They have had two journalists arrested and charged for writing/saying "insulting" things. How do they get ranked #5, ahead of the U.S. where this never happens?
WTF?!? How can a country which only recently allowed basic freedom of press (the right to talk about public officials) be the traditional best performer?
In other news, U.S. reporters have had this right since 1776.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Actually, this is quite an active discussion topic at the moment in The Netherlands. And yes, you can offend anyone or anything here. The only problem is if you do, you may get sued, because you cannot discriminate anyone here. It's in the constitution. Most of the time if somebody is offended by something (in the newspaper or so), a short-process follows. If the writer looses, most of the time a rectification has to follow in the same paper. Umm... and European countries don't? If you post something, make sure you know _all_ the details. Oh yeah... one word which makes _a lot_ of difference between the US and Europe countries: DMCA
sig(h)
When assbag Americans stop funding terrorism in my country (Ireland), I'll do my best to have our journalists investigate it.
You (the americans) shouldn't be concerned about ranking 17 on a scale that's mostly irelevant for what freedom and democracy is all about...
if you start attacking people, calling them un-american, non-patriots (whatever), becayuse they simply don't agree with the govermet policy, then your democracy has a problem...
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
This should set the hordes of US nationalist nerds that inhabit /. jumping in outrage.
That's not actually Canada, per se, it's a couple of twits at the border who turn back stuff when they feel like it. The Border Guards have a fair degree of latitude, much the same as U.S. Border Guards do.
:)
There was a fuss about some Gay Lit. (or porn, depending on your point of view) that got refused at the border, and the whole thing went to the Supreme Court. The situation is a little better now; you can import most things into Canada, you just have to pay the GST
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
I'm not a left winger, 'buddy'. Try saying 'Vive al Qaida' in Buttfuck, AK and see where it gets you.
People in France can be charged with a hate crime for calling Islam "dumb"
I have a feeling it may be that the rest of the world largely looks at your mainstream "news" such as CNN, Fox, CBS etc, as edutainment instead of reporting. I'd say about 99% of the folks I know here in Canada do, at the very least. And when all your major information channels (TV, newspapers, radio, now internet) have been crapflooded with corporate "news lite," and when all your *real* reporters can't find work anywhere, unless they sell out, your country as a whole loses out.
*I* don't see any real mainstream freedom of the press down south (and don't forget, mainstream is the only thing that really counts). And it's only getting more and more scarce up here.
Don't put salt in your eyes.
is Chili. Won't Hormel and 8 million Texans be surprised.
In other news the country formerly know as Chile is now pursuing legal action against several major US food packagers.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
Arrest shouldn't be construed or used (it is) as a penalty.
It is merely a tool to hold a person suspected of a crime, that is all it should be.
If for ANY reason you are in an area you generally shouldn't be, getting arrested until a court can determine if a crime was in fact committed is fair. Making statements that cause damage without any evidence to support them is wrong, and you should be punished for this.
Being a journalist doesn't change this, however it may give weight to your defence.
Canada ranked 15th, not 5th, according to the numbers on the map IIRC...
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Why? perhaps because the majority of people who aspire to be journalists are not trying to report the news in a fair manner. They are trying to get themselves on TV, plain and simple. Case in point, observe all the cupie-dolls and bo-hunks on your local TV news, or national, for that matter. Ashleigh Banfield couldnt find a clue if her life depended on it. Or look at how many print reporters write articles that seem remarkably like trolling for hits. They are trying to make a name for themselves, which leads to our/my zero respect for journalists. I'm not saying EVERY journalists is like this, but I think you get my drift.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
Thanks to the internet can choose which news to read. My choice may not be the best choice, but due to this article I think I'll be reading the Icelandian Newspaper in addition to googlenews and slashdot.
Remember if you restrict the press too much you end up with Russia during the cold war. If you don't restrict it enough you end up with the national enquirer. If there is absolute freedom of the press it can become difficult to discern fact from fiction. That's why only the intelligent and the wealthy seem to know what's really going on. The intelligent figure it out and the wealthy pay someone else to.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the other nine in the Bill of Rights. Look at countries such as China or Iraq as examples of what happens when the people's right to bear arms is violatedby the government. Hell, it was Mao who said that "power flows from the barrel of a gun"...like other mass murderers before him, he knew the dangers ordinary people with guns would pose to his regime. Only tyrants and criminals fear an armed citizenry.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
was a spot of something on my monitor...canada was 5th.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Apparently, someone needs to inform the French that what they call Irak is Iraq in english.
come on fhqwhgads
If you did something illegal you may have to face the consequences.
Being a member of the press does not allow nor should it permit you to violate laws that apply to all other people.
So, exactly how much international press have you read that makes you the expert on international press freedoms? ...
That's what I thought.
Bye!
Obstructing justice? It's called police work. Maybe they should try it now and then.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
We in Europe enjoy considerable freedom of press, and perhaps indeed even more so than the USA. But you're right about the press being biased.
The press here in the Netherlands is politically correct beyond belief, especially when it comes to sensitive issues or politics in general, for which they adhere to a strict set of unwritten rules. Certain questions are not to be asked, and into certain matters one is not to probe too deeply. They are also very biased towards the Labour party, most newspapers and especially national television are. A few choice examples from the recent political events over here:
- When presenting results for local elections, the TV newsreader who read out the result stated that "LN (a right wing party)thankfully did not become the largest party in Amsterdam"
- The entire press condemned mr. Fortuyn (a right wing policician) when he stated that Muslim religion is "retarded". Yet, when a Labour politician stated the same thing in exactly the same words, and was purportedly threatened for that statement, the press collectively hailed her as a brave martyr. She is a muslim herself, so for her it is fine to make such statements apparently.
- When asking the "man in the street" for opinions, they carefully select the interviewees to coincide with the stereotype they wish to perpetuate. People selected for interviews typically are:
* For a right wing voter: either a brainless disgruntled taxidriver who wants more highways, or a well-dressed woman with a pearl necklace, representing the oppressing rich
* For a voter for a populist party: preferably a person who looks like a football hooligan, and is happy to state that he is proud to never vote, only he will this time because he hates immigrants.
* For Labour voters: a very well spoken, articulate and socially engaged person, the perfect example of a concerned citizen, yet still very much a common man/woman and not an elitist intellectual.
With a press like this, freedom of press is meaningless. The USA may know less press freedom but at least the press over there is trying.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Anyone else tired of these various groups going around and making up their little 'report cards' or what-have-you on whatever issue they are interested in at the time?
Like you could say that the government of the RM of East Bumblefreak gets an 'D-' for toilet paper availability, down from last year's grade of 'C+'.
They just come out of no where and pull some ratings system out of their butts and give whatever rating they want to 'prove' some point of theirs.
I give this article an 'F-' in usefulness English speaking users.
How the countries that do sooo much better than the US in these reports (education, crime, standard of living, etc. are almost always small, socialistic, zenophobic, racially-homogenous little countries who are literally a microscopic fraction the size of the US? Iceland is a country of 250,000 (1/1,000th the size of the US) people, 90% of their population lives in ONE city. Is it really legitimate to compare a country as complex as the US to them? I lived there for a year, my God they have 2 newspapers in the entire fucking country! Considering this I fail to believe this report is very objective or relevant.
For one thing, you listing FOX as one of the non-conspiracy-rag news agencies scares me ;-)
On another topic, you bring up an interesting point on how it's not our gov't that censors the media, but the media itself. There's also a post below that talks about how Canada's papers are owned my two men who can say what is and isn't printed (that sounds quite unreal to me... is that true?).
But even if this is the case, it's important to remember that this has nothing to do with "freedom of the press". Say there is only one agent of the press in this nation. That reporter would write the only news any of us read, and in all likelihood it would be a pretty biased account of what was going on. But is that reporter free to report on whatever he/she likes?
As long as it's the case that a reporter can investigate whatever whim comes to him/her, that reporter is free and freedom of the press is maintained.
If there is only one story or one point of view covered by the press (due to bias, competition, compensation, &c.), but officers of the press are in theory free to investigate whatever stories they like, the fault is not in a nation's freedom of press, but with the nation's lack of diversity in reputable news sources.
Is the US guilty of this? Yes, I think it is -- mostly for the reasons you list above. And really, when it comes down to it, this is the type of thing that the US is notorious for. We have freedom of speech, but we get Howard Stern. We have freedom of press, but we get the Enquirer.
Still, I'd much rather be accused of not fulfilling the potential of a principal than be accused of not defending the rights that principal grants.
--
sorry, could you point me to the "responsibilities" section of the US Constitution?
funny, i thought that they were inalienable rights.
... hi bingo
as a left-wing nut -
i agree. 2nd amendment is the LAST defense, and used only in case the 1st amendment falls.
... hi bingo
As far as "crossing police lines" goes, there was a perfect example during some recent protests in DC.
The licensed protestors (I have a problem with freedom to demonstrate licenses, but they were licensed) were told to disperse. Then all avenues to disperse were blocked and they were all hurded into a park and arrested. Including campus reporters. To cap off the deal, if they waived court and pleaded immediately they could go free. If they wished to discuss it with a lawyer or contest the arrest, they were heald until monday (after the demonstrations would be over). Campus reporters, dorm residents (one hurding area was right in front of a lawschool dorm), pretty much everybody except for "commercial news" reporters.
Oh, btw, this was not some "Evil Right Wing Bush Thing", it was the LEFT WING D.C. government in all of it's glory.
There was an interesting writeup about the situation by a Washington Post cloumnist (too lazy to look it up).
Anyway, this was so recent that it may have not made this study, but it was still wrong to do just the same.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
My mistake. At least they refund my GST when I take my gay lit/porn out of the country.
Great country you guys have up there, BTW. Always been a fan. My uncle lived on an island in Parry Sound (which as every Canadian child knows was the home of Bobby Orr).
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
yeh, who the hell could stand up to those red-coats anyway!
or how could a ragtag group of frenchies stand up to their imperial govt...
so outgunned, out classed.
or how could a backwards jungle country make a superpower run away with its tail between its legs?
or a remote asian country make another superpower run with ITS tail between its legs.
yeh, i totally understand your point - david has never beat goliath.
... hi bingo
I think this is a very disturbing thought. I'm not a tyrant and I'm not a criminal, and yet I'm very afraid of armed citizenry. In a lot of Ocidental countries it is much easier to get a gun than to get some shooting courses. I'm forced to think it's very likely a lot of people get guns without knowing how to use them. And a lot of us know how dangerous guns can be in the hands of unaware people, especially when they decide to use their guns.
My neighbor's
Jeez!.... how about you actually go visit some of these places before posting uniformed BS about them. What makes you think the press are any less free in western europe than here... heck many of the media companies are the same ... CNN operates out of most european countries as well as the USA for example.
The only cable outlet that could be construed as conservative is Fox News. CNN and MSNBC are liberal up-to-their elbows. Have you seen Donahue?
an educated populace might not be interested in sensationalized reporting
Look at the cable-news channels' demographics. Their viewers are educated, much more so than the general populace. Advertising sales reps tout this as a plus when they sell local ads on these networks.
prolifieration of punditry disguised as journalism.
News and analysis are always separate and clearly delineated. Punditry is analysis. It is not presented as fact.
Self sensorship, and support of governement or corporate sensorship, to maintain a favorable political atmosphere.
This doesn't mean anything. What's been censored? Can you give examples? There is a difference between restraint (withholding details about military deployments) and censorship. Corporations and governments have ZERO censorship power in arena of political speech or the press.
Monitary support of politicians as a means of encouraging support for the corporate political agenda.
Where, who? These are PUBLIC records posted on the web. Post EXAMPLES.
This post is another example of "If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Well, if you are a fundamentalist lefty even the left-leaning press looks like a conservative cabal. It just ain't so.
Moderators, do us all a favor and mod down this evidenceless, linkless, misspelled, spurious conjecture.
Yes, it's a blog. Sorry if that offends you.
The headline is certainly an attention getter but it is probably a good idea to delve a little deeper into the substance of the article. A slightly more expanded article (also in german) provides some needed details.
The data for the report was provided by a worldwide group of journalists, researchers and legal experts.
1. The reasoning for the relatively poor showing of the United States is attributed to increased control/restriction of information availble to journalists since the 9-11 attacks.
2. Also notable is that Costa Rica placed 15th.
3. Austria, South Africa and Japan are tied in 26th place.
4. Italy ranks 40th.
(my opinion now) My beef with this report is that it does not give us any substantive information as to EXACTLY which criteria were applied to generate the rankings list. I lived overseas for 8.5 years (in europe) and noticed a strong tendancy to portray one's own country as better than the others... Sort of the same behaviour Americans tend to exhibit towards the rest of the world.
Freedom as applied to the press or as applied to individuals is a very subjective thing indeed. It is nearly impossible to objectively quantify things that are largely subjective in nature.
this survey is meaningless.
the amount of freedom a press has is proportional to the amount of information they have to dig up.
how much info do you have to dig up in costa rica?
rumsfeld censors his briefings to the press cause we're at war. is costa rica at war?
by the way how many countries prime ministers or secretaries have daily briefings with the press?
and finally, again who cares? it all comes out in the end. what we don't know now we will know in about 30-40 years anyway and we'll be flummoxed as to why we thought we needed to know so much in the first place.
case in point. the cuban missle crisis. recently tons of info has been declassified regarding those 13 days. how many of you cared? if the info is irrelevant now it was just as irrelevant then.
-
The article points out two specific reasons for the US Rank of 17.
First, the US imprisons reporters who do not reveal sources in court when subpoenaed. But nowhere in the Constitution are journalists given some sort of doctor-patient or lawyer-client confidentiality. Indeed, this is not a restriction of the press. They can still write what they want - they may simply have to spill their source if relevant to a crime. One can argue that this may hurt their livelihood if future sources elect not to talk to them for fear of being turned over, but this isn't a responsibility of a society.
Second, they argue that many security perimeters were established around buildings after September 11, and that reporters were arrested for crossing them. Shocking. You mean that reporters were arrested for blatantly commiting a crime? They should be arrested, just as I would have been. Reporters seem to think that their occupation gives them some license to break laws that apply to the rest of us. It doesn't, and shouldn't.
Ultimately, I don't think we necessarily have the most free press. There are a lot of secrets, but military and intelligence secrets should be just that. A lot of institutions blatantly violate the FOIA. But the arguments put forth by the organization that made the report are not in the least compelling.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Ok there has been this drive to not consider Scientology as a religion. But that is due to the legal process in Germany and most European states. In Europe religion falls under a very special law. Basically it gives them power to get away with "murder". And they can collect taxes from their followers.
Religion in North America is not treated special, simply like a charity. There are NO SPECIAL POWERS.
And giving away these special powers is not an easy task. Of course Scientology would want these powers like any other group...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I need to find an elderly blind gentleman with a lot of money lying around to let his "son" borrow from him. Then I can own AOL/Time Warner and oppress the lot of you all!
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
to tell to an american, referring to the DMCA,
the USA is clearly way down the list.
I mean, if in this posting I explain that using a felt marker one can circumvent the copy protection on certain audio CDs thus allowing them to be ripped to mp3, I am breaking the law in the USA and if I ever visit america (heavens forbid) I could be arrested -- for something I typed up in New Zealand!!
Heck, the USA could probably even get me deported.
Free speech in the USA?
I don't think so.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
It's not quite as bad as that, but I think there's probably a bit more of French anti-Americanism here than objectivity. Does anyone think the US is just a "satisfactory" place for journalists as opposed to a "good" place? That's what the report says!
What would a Finnish, Icelandic, etc. reporter be restricted from reporting? Lutefisk production numbers?
This link should work;
E QU ALITY.HTML
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20IN
would that be backwards jungle countries backed by the other superpower? and the remote asian country backed by another superpower?
I was listening to NPR on my way home and heard about this book:
Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press
To quote the Amazon review: "To the uninitiated reader, the accounts of what goes on behind the scenes at major news organizations are shocking. Executives regularly squelch legitimate stories that will lower their ratings, upset their advertisers or miff their investors. Unfortunately, this dirt is unlikely to reach unknowing news audiences, as this volume's likely readership is already familiar with the current state of journalism."
Power of the free market, eh?
A speech...
A person in the U.S. may have a higher expectation of freedom, therefore giving the U.S. a lower score because they expect more.
Of course, the opposite could be true, in that the culture plays into the person giving a higher score.
I personally, think it is the first, and while I think this is an important study to do, it needs to be much more objective than having people of different countries score their own country.
I am sure this was just an oversite by the well meaning corporate press we enjoy in the good ol' us of a. of course, the health care and education levels of real first world countries are also not covered. 'onder where all that money goes?
I can't seem to post this link without a space in between the "U" and the "A" in "INEQUALITY". Just remove the space (or weird inserted charcters) and it should work.
Am I just really clueless? Anyone know why I might be having problems with that?
I really don't understand why all the US based people commenting here is so upset.
I currently live in the US and comes originally from one of the 1st place countires. My personal experience is that the papers in these countries are more diversified, they write about more interssting topics, they don't censor as much, the are more controversial, the are MUCH more in-depth than their US counterparts.
This does not only hold water when it comes to reporters, but on almost all areas in life. Unfortunately, US citizens have been "thaught" that US is the best place in the world to live, have the most freedoms, etc. But that is really not the thruth.
What about all the beeps and blurs on TV? You can't say any of "The Seven Words" on radio or TV, neither can you show nudity without a blur. Now that is censorship to me!
And as a comment to the arrest of the reporters that crossed the security lines, why not just escort them to the other side? The US police has a sexual fixation on arresting people. I don't think there is any other country in the world where the police arrest as menay people as in the US for the most ridicoulus reasons. It's liek I sometimes are convinced that the get a bonus for arresting the most every week or so!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Well things are not bright in Russia. But putting Russia worser than certain neighbors is too much. I have been in some of these places and I sincerly consider that the report is too biased. They forget that some countries with "freedom" higher than Russia journalists are killed or have a puppet press that serves the wishes of local authorities. Besides, Gregory Pasko's case is quite scandalous. Yes, he was a journalist. But he was also an officer and he was sentenced for sharing too much military information with a foreign organisation. Besides these guys forget that most charges were dropped out and that this case still didn't end completely. Yes, it is a very dirty, but also a complex case. Did Pasko overweighted his duties as an officer while trying to to fulfill a citizen duty? That's what everyone asks about.
Has Russia Freedom of Information? It has - too much and too little at the same time. You can hear a journalist asking very hard questions to the President about the corrupt behaviour of the authorities on Tuva Republic. At the same time you see these same authorities trying to shut ip this dissident voice. On one side you see oligarchs, through their media,crying foul that there is no Freedom of Information. At the same time you see these media brainwashing everyone that they found data against Putin. The local TVs are controlled by local elites, but they are several and in every critical moment you see them fighting against each other and blackmailing the opponent.
Russia's Freedom of Information is a huge mastodon washing machine. It looks much like Alexis de Tocqueville memories on how the US lived in the XIX century.
And one more example on how information goes quite uncontrolled. Many of you may know that right now in Moscow there is a big hostage crisis going on. Well the channels gave people a chance to speak and now it is quite clear that some gave too much information over the screen... And it occurs that terrorists are also watching TV...
Frankly, I don't know what level should be put to
Interesting story here about a few of those countries who are ranked higher than the United States. Apparently they have more freedom as long as you don't criticize Muslims...
2 .h tm
An excerpt:
"Variously praised as the painful truth or decried as a "bigoted, anti-Muslim screed," Miss Fallaci's book is under threat of judicial action in France for inciting racial hatred."
and...
"...critics have attempted to ban the book or have her arrested in France, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy."
However, the article also mentioned that the book was extremely popular in France...
Check it out.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021023-1887459
Why do american "patriots" so often feel the need to blindly defend the U.S? Saying that the marks are irrlevant, that the european press is more evil and not free at all, and it's some damn liberal plot again.
I thought that patriotism meant love for ones country, not for ones goverment, I thought a patriot of a democracy was supposed to always question anything that might infringe on his freedom or that of others. But it seems that whenever an article like this is seen in the news, the american "patriots" refuse to question their goverment or their nations policy, instead they stand up behind it no matter what and dismiss the criticism as some foreigners and/or liberals having their panties in a bunch.
This is I believe, the opposite of what the founders of the US would have wanted. The US is not the greatest nation on earth simply because patriots say so, even if they yell it from the rooftops or chant it every chance they get. If the US is the greatest nation it is because it allows people freedom, they have freedom to question their goverment and its actions among other things, but it seems that the more patriotic an american is the less they feel a need to question anything. That apathy and contentment is a real danger to democracy, because it means no one is protecting the democratic rights.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Just because YOU don't get news about what is happening in those countries (I live in the freezing hell-hole that is Iceland), doesn't mean that nothing happens there, it is not enough that they lack stuff to report about, it's simply not picked up by the american press. Why you ask? (fearing that you might be punished for asking)
... or is /. perhaps your only news-source?
The fact is that the only news you americans are allowed to (or what you want to) read about from other countries is this:
1) about something going on that goes against what YOU believe in, i.e. what you consider human rights violations, what you
2) countries not willing to do what YOUR government wants them to do (same as no. 1 really), Iraq, Palestinia, China etc.
3) gossip and humour (or: what YOU find funny), i.e. the misfortunes of the Royal family, the spaniard that married his horse, the china man who cut of his penis etc. etc.
yes, I think it's pretty obvious that you are from america, but your ignorance of what is going on in the world is not entirely your fault, it because YOUR COUNTRY HAS INSUFFICIANT FREE PRESS!! (see headline).
Open your eyes, ryuie2ie.
p.s.:As for the "why are they moving here if the press has more freedom in their home countries?", well, guess what, free press is not essential for building a working economy...
Let me get this straight:Your RUSSIAN professor was lecturing AMERICANS about freedom? That's rich.
You need to do some reading
To which REAL freedoms was he referring? The freedom to be arrested in the middle of the night? To be murdered in cold blood for daring to read samizdat or just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Maybe you're referring to the freedom to pollute and destroy the environment without regulation, to produce chemical and biological warheads (not just in tests, in missiles) and then allow those materials to proliferate to third-world despots? What about the freedom of the NKVD/KGB to murder anyone at anytime for any reason? In that case, I guess he was right.
America has lots of problems -yes, but the "Blame American first" crowd really makes me sick. America is among the freest countries in the world. Sure, there's a LOT to criticize about it, but don't be ridiculous.
Yes, it's a blog. Sorry if that offends you.
Look at countries such as China or Iraq as examples of what happens when the people's right to bear arms is violatedby the government.
Look at countries such as Finland as an example of what happens when the people's right to bear arms is violated by the government.
do some educated reasoning... this report demonstrates the typical relentless ranting of European (in this case, French) supposed superiority. the reports' definitions of "freedom" does not apply to what we Americans consider freedom. sure, some things in europe are better than the US, and the US is better at other things, and this discussion is endless, but understand the bias/skew in a report like this. it is based on different values!
and it may be true about the socialist scandinavian countries being in the top spots. the governments there SUBSIDIZE the reporting of "underreported" (boring) stories. now THAT is agenda-setting! europeans would counter that by saying american media is too much driven by profits. they are free to do so!
And a very recent example, to the contrary of this report, a French author "could have faced up to 18 months in jail or a 70,000 euro (£44,000) fine if found guilty" of "inciting racial hatred by saying Islam was "the stupidest religion"" BBC article here, (Oct 22, 2002)
'2tall'
This here is press-men deciding which places are best for the press to do buisness in. In other words, can you report what you see without going to jail? That's thier bit. Read the bottom. They help reporters in jail.
I imagine it completely neglects many things that we consider *very* important for press freedom. I imagine they close thier eyes to internal buisness politics and the media owners themselves. After all, they are reporters. They think they are the bastion for the free spread of information, yet look at the newspapers! Really look at the fucking newspapers. They parrot Reuters. That's it. The censorship that they do, that they learned to do to rise in thier profession (troublesome reporters who hinder sales *do* *not* *rise*), that thier bosses do, is a giant blind spot. Investigative reporting is dead - and they and thier bosses let it die - and they're running around pretending that the US sticking a couple of people in jail for tresspassing is a serious factor in the fucked up new-speak trash that passes as journalism around the world compared to the fact that Monsano can kill a story with a fucking phone call!
All of the US government repression in the world is a drop in the fucking bucket compared to the simple fact that every time you find a reporter who broke a real story, big news, better than 50 percent of the time he lost his job. Journalists repressed by the government? Fuck that. The press destroyed itself.
If the press were doing investigative journalism, if the journalists had skills at finding the stories (and wern't fired for doing so) - then it would be an uphill battle for the internet to brush aside the newspapers as a media source. Since journalism is dead, probably never existed in the way we think of it (hasn't it always been about getting people to buy large square sheets of low quality paper in bulk), and the online sites are just as good at sucking news off Reuters as a newspaper, traditional news media is dying.
Helping reporters get out of jail is a noble cause. Thinking that your narrow focus in this activity makes you some kind of universal expert on press freedom is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard this week. News is killed more often with a pen than a sword - or in this case, a phone call from a billionaire that the boss plays golf with.
Nimwits. This is not news. It's a piece of propaganda to sell thier particular cause.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
They still weren't allowed to do it with anything prerecorded then either, but the networks being able to pull the sympathetic tragedy card if the FCC tries to call them on their extra ratings grabber (Dude, ABC's coverage is pretty cool, but CNN is letting people cuss and stuff!) kept that particular concern at bay. I just find it sad that particular words or concepts are actually legally censored in the "land of the free". I've probably said the word "fuck" about three million times over the past 20 years and am still waiting for someone's heart to explode in their chest to justify the censorship of it over the airwaves.
I swear when I read this title the first time, I thought it said "Humans rank 17th in Freedom of the Press"...
which tripped me out, I mean maybe that meant that the vogon's were free-r of speech than we are.
We're much freer. Period.
And you don't have to live in EVERY country to know about freedom. We're free. Other countries are not as free as we are. I've never been anywhere freer than the USA. That's my experience, and I have quite a bit.
Yes, it's a blog. Sorry if that offends you.
Look out for those black helicopters!
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
...the way they do.
:-) ).
:-)
The Nazi Thing:
In Germany offering 'Mein Kampf', saying 'Heil Hitler!' wearing Nazi Symbols, denying the Holocaust, calling Auschwitz a lie - aka 'the Auschwitz lie' and discriminating etnic groups or religions can get you a serious legal ass-chewing faster than going topless on a south-eastern US beach (SCNR
As an american pupil, I heard scottish pupils call me "Nazikid" just for the fact that I came to Scottland from Germany. Any german pupil in midgrades or higher would risk being chucked out of school almost instantly donig something like that.
Today germans in general show no sense of humor what so ever when dealing with anything that has even the faintest impression of being fashitoid or Nazi-like. That has even trippled since Mölln and Rostock/Lichtenhagen. And comparing someone with anything like that is the severest of possible insults. You may have noticed that Herta Däubler-Gmelin resigned from her position two days after she had mentioned George Bush and 'Adolf Nazi' in the same sentence.
You say one wrong word, or just even make the impression you where going to say it - and there goes your political career.
The CoS Thing:
Aside from the fact that, in germany, all religious and etnic groups are equaly protected under the german constitution, Scientology has officially been disqualified as a religious group and has the official status of a 'revenue orientated society' and has a set of sidenotes stuck on the fact that it poses a threat to democracy and the german constitution. Especially as total world domination (TM) is an official central goal of the CoS (sic!).
And think what you will about the german 'Federal Bureau for Protection of the Constitution' (Bundesverfassungsschutz), it isn't that they officially anounce they're putting an organization under observation every odd month. Like they did with the CoS. Usually only sympathisants of groups that fly planes into skyscrapers get that sort of attention. That's all one needs to know about the CoS to know enough.
And speaking of religious freedom: German Hare-Krishnas have officially applied for room and curriculum-time for religious classes (which are attended voluntarily of course) in Schools throughout Berlin jurisdiction. It was granted. Do you have that kind of freedom in the U.S.?
So, don't jump to conclusions before you know the whole story.
Bottom Line: If you want to know what trouble feels like, go to Berlin, stand at the 'Brandenburger Tor' wearing a CoS T-Shirt and yell 'Heil Hitler!'
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Very Well said.
I find it interesting that five Scandinavian countries are in the top ten. Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Leveling up builds character.
oh wait -- that's what WE do, complaining that we DO have the rights they tell us we don't have, without actually leaving our own country ... hmmmm ... makes you think? probably not.
I'd bet quite a bit ... that I am more widely travelled than you. Not a boast, just a very good guess. Hey, you brought it up.
I hear that the freedom of the press at the north pole is GREAT!!! There is absolutely NO censorship at all, and people can say whatever they want, without any fear of breaking the law!
THANK GOD!
Someone else knows the true horror that the government have unleashed! The horror that is BATBOY!
The fact that the guy will be imprisoned/killed if he goes back to his country doesn't mean that he has to agree with everything in your society. I think it's fairly natural for a political refugee to be very critical of the society he lives in. After all, he learned the dangers of a badly construed society and is probably very interested in creating a better society (in the US and in Iran). You can't create a better society without analyzing the existing ones and determining their strenghts and weaknesses.
The true hypocrisy is with nationalists who simply assume that their society is the best or "God's own country"(tm) without a true understanding of other societies in this world and their strengths and weaknesses.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Having a country who guarantees freedom of the press in thier constitution lagging behind countries that have no such beginnings makes you wonder about how much the people of said country care about thier own history. It makes you wonder how much people care anymore about being free as thier own country defines it.
The ranking uses meaningless metrics so it's results are meaningless. Freedom of the Press permits journalists to print anything they discover. It does not shield reporters who use illegal means to gain such information, if caught engaging in illegal activities a reporter can be justly prosecuted. That is not a violation of freedom of speech. Trying thinking critically, just a little bit. The press, like the branches of government, have limitations (breaking and entering, trespassing, bribery, etc.).
The press is supposed to be more than just somewhere you find out the news. The press is supposed to be an independant check on the integrity of the government and the status quo.
The US press accomplishes this mission. There is no shortage of powerful politicians from all parties and government agents and respresentatives of all administrations who get caught engaging in various forms of corruption and are exposed by the press.
I thought I would post this because most people seem to have missed this link to how the rankings were determined:
(from http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=4118)
Worldwide press freedom index How the index was drawn up This index measures the amount of freedom journalists and the media have in each country and the efforts made by governments to see that press freedom is respected. Reporters Without Borders sent out a questionnaire based on the main criteria for such freedom and asking for details of directs attacks on journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical assaults and threats) and on the media (censorship, confiscation, searches and pressure). It also asked about the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for such violations. The questionnaire recorded the legal environment for the media (such as punishment for press offences, a state monopoly in some areas and the existence of a regulatory body) and the behaviour of the state towards the public media and the foreign press. It also noted the main threats to the free flow of information on the Internet. Reporters Without Borders has not just taken into account the excesses of the state but also those of armed militias, underground organisations and pressure groups that can be serious threats to press freedom. In addition, the state does not always use all its resources to fight the impunity the perpetrators of such violence very often have. The questionnaire was sent to people with a real knowledge of the press freedom situation in one or more countries, such as local journalists or foreign correspondents living in the country, researchers, legal experts, specialists on a region and the researchers of the Reporters Without Borders International Secretariat. The countries included in the index are those about which Reporters Without Borders received completed questionnaires from several independent sources. Other countries have not been included for lack of reliable information. Countries that got equal scores have been ranked in alphabetical order. This index of press freedom is a portrait of the situation based on events between September 2001 and October 2002 . It does not take account of all human rights violations, only those that affect press freedom. Neither is it an indicator of the quality of a country's media. Reporters Without Borders defends press freedom without regard to the content of the media, so any ethical or professional departures from the norm have not been taken into account.
Maybe the United States should fix itself first before going after the supposed rights of others.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I agree. The reason that the US is arguably the most free society in the world is because it's one of the most armed.
For example, Bush would be unable to do to the US what his father did to Latin American, simply because we are as well armed as any terrorist groups he might send out to attack us.
I am anti-conservative and anti-Republican. I fully support the right of people to keep and bear arms. From the looks of the Bush's plans for America, we will probably need them.
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
The government decides to hold a press conference and invites all the friendly press along... this is normal and not called censorship. If any one of those present writes a scathing report of what is said they do not get invited to the next conference. Any paper that is not invited cannot sell papers as they find out what is going on after everyone else and they lose money. It may not be consorship but it is as effective. The only way to combat this and to have true press freedom is to legislate. It would be silly to expect those that gain to introduce the curbs to their own control.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Too bad I used all my mod points today, this post (cascadingstylesheet) is clearly +1 informative, +1 underrated and +1 TRUE
I know several immigrants from russia that came here in the 80s, and they would strongly disagree with the aforementioned russian professor
Shock horror. The fact is, the general public of the US are the least free of all first world countries. Try visiting Australia, or New Zealand. Now WE have freedom
The anti-gun movement linking guns to terrorism is cheap. Who supplied the guns and training to the "terrorists"? WE DID! Who built up Afghanistan and Iraq? WE DID!!! Crime and terrorism are also linked to poverty, right? Most of these terrorist countries are extremely poor. The events of Sept 11th took place because of box knives, not guns. The terrorists commited the act to cause terror, but who delivered it to your home? Unless you live in New York it was CNN or some other media outlet playing the horrific scenes over and over again to burn them into your brain. Should we get rid of the press as well because they HELP terrorism? I say hell no!!
What next a padded world with plastic spoons, thorazine, and no shoelaces? That is the ideal world of the leftist, It would make it very hard to hurt ourselves and someone else (god forbid). Rather the leftist should just come to grip with the cold nature of human reality. Humans have been inhumane to humanity thoughout time, it is our nature, there is no way to stop it short of killing off all humans. Then lions will still hunt and kill thier prey (MR. Leftist says, "oh no, the injustice of the world").
Meanwhile we call terrorists "cowards", as they give up thier own lives for thier cause, while us chicken shits in the US send in our laser guided bombs from a distance.
Don't get me wrong, I love the US. I hate the propaganda, corruption, and unconditional support of a terrorist country (Israel). We should help Israel if it's well behaved, but lately it has been a rabid dog. Supporting one terrorist over the other is stupid and will likely get us hit much harder than Sept 11th.
Very well put. What is worse is that these people brand their opponents as unpatriotic for criticizing the country's policies, when they themselves haven't even bothered to read the Constitution, much less the Federalist Papers, Common Sense, or pretty much anything about American history since their high school history books. Don't call yourself a patriot if you don't even know what the U.S. Constitution says.
With things such as the DMCA and the patriot act, the ability of american citizens to speak freely and henceforth report freely has been limited as well.
A good example where this could be taken to an extreme with the copy protected cd's. Technically if a news source reports that you can defeat the copy protection by using a felt permanent marker to cover the bad part of the disk, their violating the DMCA because their disiminating information used to subvert the copy protection on a piece of media.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Why? Are you worried that your neighbor is going to gun you down? If he's that much of a low-life, you need to consider (a) moving or (b) arming yourself as a defense against him. Don't count on the government to guarantee your safety as they can do fsck-all for you if some punk wishes to do you harm. Call for a cop and call for a pizza; tell us which one arrives first.
The same can be said for cars and driver's-ed courses. Your point is...? (Before you point out that you need a driver's license to operate a car, let me remind you that while the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that is not subject to government interference or restriction, operating a motor vehicle on the public streets is a privilege. It's also worth noting that in many jurisdictions, you don't need to have taken any driver's-ed courses to get a driver's license.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
From the article: The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there.
:-)
This could simply be a measure of the "bravery" of reporters rather than freedom of the press. We've got "cowboy reporters with balls" here
IOW, my reporters can beat up your reporters.
Table-ized A.I.
He wasn't linking guns to terrorism. He was linking the threatened use of guns against government officials as terrorism. The argument that guns will keep us free might have made sense when the only guns around were muskets, but in the modern era do you really think the federal government is afraid of a few hundred 50+ yr-old rednecks practicing with semiautomatics in the woods?
If so, please check the following link: http://web.amnesty.org/web/icc_petition.nsf/action _english
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Are they comparing what is allowed at the government or corporate level? The key is in the US if an event happens, I can report it on without fear of prosecution. That is to say I report the truth. If I twist the truth or flat out lie it can be considered libel.
/. so grain of salt and all.
Now if I work for a major news reporting corporation, and I want to report on an event, but my boss won't allow it, that's not violating freedom of the press. That's just the corporation deciding that they don't to want report an event. But there isn't anything stopping me from reporting it myself to the local paper, on the Internet, by giving out handouts on street corners, etc and no government, local, state or federal can prevent me from disemenating that information.
Then again, this is
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
I mean this country was first settled by people soo repressive in their ideals that they were kicked out of every other country on the known planet (at that time). Hence the religious right wing of today.
Well, the Official Secrets Act is a pretty good censoring tool as was also talked about (sort of) here Relating to a Cryptome article which is a quite recent display of its powers. I'm sure that if you Google for it you'd be able to find many, many more cases.
I'm going over here and I don't know why!
You think they didn't know? I would rather suspect that they did -- as would anybody who gave a few moments thought to the question -- but the economics and politics of the time prohibited doing much about it.
1- Airlines weren't exactly in great financial shape before then.
2- Security in terms of intrusive searches and El Al-style pre-boarding interviews (the 'correct' way to handle it, probably, from a security POV) takes a huge amount of time, training and money.
3- Adding things like bomb detectors increases time delays due to needing to check out false positives, e.g. nylon stockings giving off nitrogen vapors.
4- The customers were already pissed off in terms of delays, pre-boarding waits, and so forth.
Any airline that would have unilaterally boosted security to the point where it were actually meaningful (e.g. that hasn't been achieved yet...) might have been pushed into bankruptcy by customers fleeing to competitors who could field many more flights per day with far less inconvenience. Were the FAA to have tried, it would have been political suicide for the administration.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
There are so many postings by users that I just shocked that the U.S. even ranked 17th...I am not shocked. Actually, it should be higher if not for journalists trying to get into secured areas, and actually being arrested for it, and the such. (Image that...actually enforcing laws.)
Well...I have a theory as to why so many are shocked by the fact that we did that well.
They read stuff like slashdot every day, with plenty of "America bad, Europe/Canada good" articles and postings. (Seriously...I have no idea why the editors still live in this country if it's so fucking terrible and all the great tech is overseas...same goes for so many users.) The biases here and on other sites really do take a toll on the perspectives of it's audience.
Well...wake up call....the U.S. is actually pretty good. It's the best at many things, and very seldom actually bad about anything.
dude - if american stupidity is going to kill itself, we're taking the world down with us.
GOOOOOOO DUBYA!!!
... hi bingo
You would say they need less freedom then they have. The press in the US is generally irresponsible. I remember when they got real irratated on 911 when thay could not broadcast the exact location of Mr. Bush. I remember them being in Waco with the ATF and began a live broadcast 45 minutes before the raid begain. To be in the US press is to love yourself, and all that matters is ratings. If you have a responsible press then give them more freedom, we dont.
Get a free ipod.
"I would also like to point out that the US is in the 10th position as the other countries were tied for their spots."
If I come in first, and tie with another person in first, we are both in first. The next person is in third. There is no second place when two people tie for first. This is an accepted standard for ranking things. It happens at the Olympics, it happens in ratings. If you think the US is really in 10th because of ties, you are having a bad case of sour grapes. The only suggestion I can offer is to go get some cheese to go with it.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
In Stand on Zanzibar, John Brunner describes a 'fictional' country in West Africa where peace is (genetically) predominant. It was written around 1970 but set around now. I'm just commenting on a coincidence, but... read it if you have the chance, this book and a couple of others he wrote are precursors to 'cyberpunk' SF.
Here's an interesting fact: officials haven't gotten any more bulletproof than they were 226 years ago.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
A couple of weeks ago I read a report on countries' political corruption (as perceived by the respective countries' citizens). It's interesting to note that Iceland and Finland are in the top 5 in the both surveys. The U.S. ranks at #16 in this survey but some large European countries that scored well on press freedom (Germany and France) did not do so well on corruption (7th and 11th (press), 18th and 25th (corruption), respectively). (But I suppose I could be reading a little too far into this!)
Absolutely. exp(pi*sqrt(163)) is right. As you can find out from reading the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton was _opposed_ to the idea of a Bill of Rights. His reason was that stating that, for example, the press _ought_ to be free does nothing to increase freedom of the press. It's just the same as saying there _ought_ to be no slavery, and that the government _ought_ to derive its powers from the people.
The media companies seem to have virtually no self discipline and no system of chacks and balances. Here, the journalists' and the editors union hav agree upon a set of rules, the "be carful poster". This is an actual poster, found in every media desk with some self-imposed rules that we have to follow. Breaches can be brough in before the review board by anyone for free. The review board consits of thre journalists, three editors and thre members of the public. A critisism from the board is very serious for a jounalist, roughly the same as a kick in the nuts. This makes sure the media is always aware of the moral boundries.
Even more dangerous than the seemingly loos morals in the media desks, is the ownership conflict. It seems that USAian media have a hard time being objective when in comes to their own mother companies. Here we have NRK (www.nrk.no), a goverment own system of TV-stations, radiostations and internet sites. They are so aware of their own doing, that they rank as #1 in giving NRK harsh critisism. Only then can they be legitimate in the eyes of the public.
The constitution in Norway grants the press very, very, very wide liberties. There are a few restrictions such as the penal code 135A that prohibits racial and homophobic threats. But this is considered to be libery ensuring not hindering. Why? Because they right to be something is also an expression, as in homosexuality. Any threats to this is considered counter-active to liberty. The same apply to religion. We also have some arcane laws that protects that King, but not from critisism.
So, it may look like there's a clean up waiting in the US.
As long as you don't dispute the official story of the Holocaust
;)
People who deny the Holocaust should be shot on sight IMHO.
There is enough evidence that the holocaust has
happened. These people are making fun of *MILLIONS* of dead men, women and childern. This has nothing to do with free speach.
don't say anything that can be considered anti-semitic
If you are in politics and say something anti-semitic your are dead meat in 90% of the time. This has nothing todo with freedom of press.
never say Hitler had any redeeming qualities
Plain wrong, sorry. Many people think *and say* that Hitler was a genius (sp?) in rethorics and speach. Hey this idiot managed to convince a whole country to go to war for him. You should see some old TV recordings from him. In rethorics he was one of the best of his time. Sadly he was'nt a genius is 90% of the other things he did....
if I wanted to be an idiot, racist, insensitive jerk, I have the right to make it known.
As long as you stay within the law you can - of course - do that in germany, too. You wont have many friend, but thats a different matter
How many poeple in Germany are in jail for one of the above offences?
See my comment on the holocaust.
Most of them plainly deserve it IMO
The problem with rankings is that the rank is absolute, not relative. So the assumption is that there is an even spacing between ranks so that 16th is as far from 15th as 2nd is from 1st.
But as all of us geeks know that the system could be on a completely different scale (power, exponential, logarithmic, etc).
In short, how much worst is 17th from 1st? In theory the top 20 or so could be so tightly packed that it really is irrelevant. It isn't like the US is in the bottom 10% or anything. Statistics?
Or is this just a subjective poll based on little more than opinion?
What is music when you despise all sound?
What DMCA? What censorship?
The real problem is [CENSORED]
Now move along nothing to see here!
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
Well, just remebered the time when journalist hunted and haunted me and my colleagues - the Y2K hype.
From that experience I learn a few things.
Journalists are in its large majority quite biased. They want the news. If they don't get hit, they start flaming.
Journalists frequently cry for freedom. But their freedom is not freedom of expression. For many of them "freedom of press" means "write whatever comes to your head".
Journalists really don't like that someone spoils their "hot news". If you don't wanna say a word they cry "censorship", if you disagree with them, they cry "propaganda". If you send them somewhere else, they cry "attacks on press".
Journalists love to write. Even if they have no material. One colleague was attacked by a series of stupid questions, sounding like Armageddon predictions. He answered "that's hype, nothing else". The journalist managed to produce an half page comment of this phrase in one newspaper telling that experts were blind and could not see what was going on.
Journalists believe they can be experts in everything. When they write about hackers or computers, most texts are more fantastic than most Holywood blockbusters.
Not all journalists are like these ones. But the sensationalist mass is the majority. During Y2K, I saw only one guy who had the head a little bit on his shoulders. Everyone else, some 6-7 idiots, were always trying to get the best prediction for Armageddon.
Ooops except one. The jerk seemed to have get pissed on something and wrote a stupid tale that the city where I live had the honour to have the NNth most dangerous hacker in the world. And told everyone who this "mega-dangerous" hacker was in some popular newspaper.. Till now people ask me about this...
So, people, don't take too close to heart this list... Frankly, I know a little bit about journalistics in some 10-11 countries and I'm terribly admired about their positions in this list.
This seems like an absolute load of crap of American-envy. I've spent a considerable ammount of time in Germany, and the press is much more restricted. For example, the Germans (who are ranked 7th), do not allow news establishments to disciminate pro-nazi information. While, I certainly oppose any nazi-ism, the right to voice your opinion (no matter how idiotic it may be) is guaranteed by the constitution. Absolute shite!
I'm not worried about my neighbor, I'm worried about people who don't know how to use a gun using it. I'm not worried about being shot myself, I'm worried about innocent people being accidentaly shot by ignorant people. Unfortunately this is very common in some big cities.
Of course a car can be as deadly as a gun, but IMHO guns were created to kill people easier, while cars not. Anyway, I think someone should never get a gun without knowing how to use it. I could say this about cars, too, but let's stay focused. I dare to say this is common sense. Personally, I'd prefer no one could get a gun at all; this way, no one could ever be shot, but somehow I guess this is much more difficult. :)
I don't really believe we should be talking about cars, but just to make things more correct: in most Ocidental countries, you can't legally drive without driving courses in any jurisdiction. And in most of these countries, driving courses are way cheaper than cars.
My neighbor's
Personally, I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Aww, is Walter Kronkite upset that he can't film a war in Iraq, or other secret military operations? Are the agencies in Washington DC keeping the details of the sniper investigation from Dan Rather? How dare they! These poor, mistreated reporters need to take a tip from Geraldo and board a flight to Afghanistan where all these meddlesome press censors won't be in their way.
Not all normal citizens are restricted access to crime scenes. Police don't usually have much trouble crossing police lines. Why should they get rights that reporters don't?
"So, don't jump to conclusions before you know the whole story."
I don't care what the justification is. You cannot have Freedom of the Press if you outlaw the printed expression of certain viewpoints, no matter how much you disagree with those viewpoints.
That's why I found it quite odd to see Germany and France listed above the US when they do not have Freedom of the Press.
1 Finland 0,50
- Iceland 0,50
- Norway 0,50
- Netherlands 0,50
5 Canada 0,75
6 Ireland 1,00
7 Germany 1,50
- Portugal 1,50
- Sweden 1,50
10 Denmark 3,00
11 France 3,25
12 Australia 3,50
- Belgium 3,50
14 Slovenia 4,00
15 Costa Rica 4,25
- Switzerland 4,25
Half these countries would fit inside Texas if you stuffed them in there at the same time. Why not compare the U.S.A on a state by state basis. I'm sure there are lots of states that have no jounalists in prison.
And where the hell is Luxembourg? The fact that Belgium and Holland made it but not Luxembourg makes me doubt they even did a study.
Even more troubling, Urugay ties with Briton and everyone knows that jounalists there can't even print the name of the country without getting sued for slander.
.
...my country Venezuela is #77, and our press says everything on their mind. The problem is, that the goverment takes revenge. They closed all the tv channels on the april 11th strike (silly thing, since one channel has a satellite and jumped off the restriction)
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
I haven't seen anything here that demonstrates that freedom of the press is actually limited in the U.S.
1 - A narrow scope of news available is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. It is an indication of corporatioins making business decisions. You are free to start a newspaper and print whatever you wish.
2 - Reporters put in jail for not revealing sources is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. This is done when the nature of the reporting clearly demonstrates that a crime has been committed, and rarely, if ever, has anything to do with the report itself. Witness Bill Gertz here in D.C. He frequently publishes word-for-word excerpts from highly classified documents, to the unending frustration of military/intelligence types. Bill is still writing whatever he pleases.
3 - Reporters getting arrested for being in off-limits areas is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. Contrary to what they may believe, reporters do not have a constitutional right to go wherever they please or do whatever they please to get a story, any more than I have a right to wander into the White House to exercise my constitutional right to speak freely.
4 - Reporters being criticized for speaking against the administration or government is not an example of restricted freedom of the press. The constitution grants the right to print whatever you please, but does not grant you the right to do so without counter or criticism.
5- The government withholding information from the press is not an indication of restricted freedom. The people in those government positions also have a job to do, and they take it every bit as seriously as those all-holy reporters. Sometimes the best (or only) way to be successful in that job is to keep secrets. (side note -- interesting how the press is so willing to publish information that the military/intelligence community says compromises valuable sources, yet they proudly withstand contempt charges to protect their OWN sources.)
It sounds to me like all the pissing and moaning here would more properly be directed at U.S. society in general (and I disagree with these specific complaints, but you are certainly free to make them.) Your freedom to speak and print what you please is a very specific and simple freedom. It does not include the right to break other laws or hinder the legal process, and certainly doesn't guarantee immunity from angry responses from your fellow citizens.
I invite any examples of REAL restrictions on freedom of the press in the U.S. I know there are some (trial gag orders come to mind.) If we can find two or three, we may have something to discuss.
Evil is the money of root.
WTF - they don't even list New Zealand, last time I checked we had a press ...
N/T
...RMS comes out and tell us "see? i told you gpl was good!"
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
I imagine it would be similar to the freedom of press available in my basement.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
Actually, according to Chomsky, it's not the media, but advertisers that censor the media. By threatening to pull advertising dollars, they have a huge amount of control over media. Obviously, when it comes to media such as television, they have almost complete control. Also, most of the American press get their news from the arms of Institutions that are set up to feed them with a constant supply of material. So, again, the press is dependant on the government and corporations for quite a bit of official news, and these organizations are obviously quite commited and enthusiastic about making sure the media get the "official" version. When you combine this other effective filters, you get an extremely powerful mechanism that serves a right wing corporate agenda and moneyed interests.
There is a lot of criticizim about the ranking many of them are relevant points. But to talk about the freedom of press in the US. A few months ago it became glaringly obvious to me how narrow minded and conservative the US press really is.
One incident in recent times, There were large protests against Bush's war on terror in San Francisco and New York with 20,000+ protestors each a few weekends ago. There was a 400,000 person protest in england with many many important people speaking thier minds against the war at each of these events. Not one word about this was mentioned in any of the mainstream US media. Tim Robbins (actor) spoke out against the war in the New York protest and he didn't get any coverage. Where as CNN covered Spielberg and Tom Curise who were pro-war.
I it is hilarious when the name of a cat rescued by a firefighter is mentioned on CNN but the name of a person who pulled out three people to safety from a minivan that crashed into the ocean is unmentioned.
Why a a cat rescue is news worthy? Why do events from the rest of the world hardly ever get a mention? It seems as if there is nothing happening in the rest of the world when you live in the US. A major train collison in say China/ India is less newsworthy than a cat stuck in a tree!!!!
I have lived in the middle east in Kuwait and oman. We used to get BBC world and CNN in Oman. It is very blatantly obvious how sensationalized and ridiculous the news is in the US. Even countries that are placed lowest on the list have a news around the world section. I live in the US for the past 6 years.
Most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world. It is very evident in the colleges of this country where time and again I have been asked stupid and ignorant questions about India and the Middle East by so called educated people.
I'm not sure if an entire countries freedom of the press should be based on the single most catastrophic to happen to it in recent history.
They haven't mentioned the DMCA.;)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
(a) It's their job.
(b) They're trained to not fuck up the crime scene, and pretty often they don't, whereas a reporter's primary concern will often be getting grisly photographs to maximize ratings and to hell with maintaining the integrity of the chain of evidence. Many will happily choose ratings over due process, given the treatments given to Jewell and Hatfill (sp?).
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
There's actually not a lot of US bashing going on in that article. Just a lot of outraged posts afterwards.
..and - oh yeah.. we are #10/#5 - but we could do better.
I'm for example not bashing Finland for being #1 - i'm happy for them. I'm not particularly worried about the freedom off the press in the US either - it's doing just fine.
what worries me are all those Americans throwing aimless insults towards countries ranking higher than them - or Earthlings/non-americans attacking the Americans for being too narrow minded.
America is not perfect - neither is the rest of the world.
Congratulation on the #17/#10 spot.
the Dane
As some of the posters here have shown quite clearly, Americans tend to confuse an individual's freedom of speech (me and my soapbox) and the freedom of the press (what CNN is allowed to do). This is understandable, since (to simplify it) they have the same legal grounding the Constitution. However, this is not the way most other democracies do things. Germany, for instance, learned about the power of the press the hard way under the Nazi propaganda machine, and therefore distinguishes between Meinungsfreiheit (freedom of speech) and Pressefreiheit (freedom of the press). The press in Germany is considered the "fourth estate" and as such is integrated into the system of checks and balances with special rights and obligations (!). German law also tries to take into account that the media is a multi-million-dollar industry that sometimes tends to try make money first and hunt for the truth later.
So the American posters here who are going "yeah, but you're not allowed to say there wasn't a Holocaust in Germany" are perfectly right, but they are also completely missing the point. That is a question of freedom of speech, not freedom of the press, which is what this study was about. The German press reports all the time about people running around saying there was no Holocaust, and there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it.
This system also gets rid of most of the gripes about the trashy press in the U.S. presented here: The German press has duties as well as rights. For example, you can be sued for Verletzung der journalistischen Sorgfaltspflicht, which could be translated as "journalistic negligence". If you say A did X, you have to prove you really, really tried to get A's own version. Then there are a whole host of privacy laws that are considered a basic right in Europe and are designed to protect the public from the press, a very alien concept to Americans, who are told that the press is protecting democracy when it is broadcasting the photo, place of residence and full name of a four-year-old rape victim.
The second part is that the rest of the democratic world considers the freedom of the press such a very basic and important right that is dealt with at a federal level in federal laws that apply to everybody in the country. So when some American judge in Somewhere, Ohio decides that a journalist has to give up his sources in a murder trial, while a different judge in Somewhere Else, New York in a similar case says he doesn't, this shocks Europeans who have this humanistic belief that the law should treat all people equally, especially when we're talking about basic freedoms.
Americans, on the other hand, don't have a federal law book, and are furthermore stuck with a legal system that never made it past the 18th Century. Trial-by-jury is something that the rest of the free world thinks is only a minor improvement on using a lottery or chicken guts to decide who is guilty. It does not bother Americans that a court in one state or even town will interpret your basic rights differently than another judge a few miles down the road, since they have been told that this is the way it has to be. To the rest of the democratic world, this is as unbelievable as, say, not being able to count your ballots correctly in a federal election.
So basically the study is only examining the different degrees of freedom of the press in different countries, nothing more and nothing less. And by that measure, the U.S. in fact does not deserve a top spot, because the enemies of the press (who at times include the press itself) can and do use the legal uncertainty inherent in the American system against journalists. The question of banning "The Story of O" in Germany or IRA literature in Britain does not enter into it, as valid as these questions would be in discussion of freedom of speech.
So he'll be emulating Israel's treatment of Palestine.
Actually, I seem to remember that of the "easy" news sources -- TV and Radio, only 5 companies have locked up 80% of the media. How can they do that? Well, the easy news sources require radio wave bandwidth, and that's controlled by the FTC, which is in turn controlled by laws written by Congress, which is selected through a voting mechanism heavily weighted towards two specific parties [which work together as one], which also takes marching orders from the same media that they depend on for reelection.
So yeah, unless you want to make a false distinction between media and the government, I'd say that freedom of the press is a problem in America, and that it is governmentally restricted.
Just because the restriction goes through two layers doesn't mean it isn't there.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Bugger - sorry about the missiing
I agree with your skepticism: that people frequently choose to eat fast food and that such restaurants outnumber those of higher class does not mean that my right to eat at or open a gourmet restaurant has been eroded; it just means that my fellow citizens have bad taste and I am a suffering snob. As a libertarian, I define freedom to be freedom from coercion, and coercion I define very narrowly.
However, two of your points were areas of real coercion.
"2 - Reporters put in jail for not revealing sources..."
We already extend client confidentiality protection to doctors and lawyers, so a precedent exists. Rush Limbaugh today suggested that the press could probably get ahold of this sniper character and interview him, at least with more competence than the FBI. If they would they then have to reveal everything they knew, how would the guy trust them in the first place? If you don't like that example, what about the more important case where the press is criticizing the government? The press is a major democratic institution that is supposed to be one of the checks on government overstepping its bounds. Whistleblowers and other sources should be protected.
"5- The government withholding information from the press is not an indication of restricted freedom."
As I said above, the press is a key part of our system of maintaining government accountability; exciting scandals like Watergate are obvious example, but in general they keep our government officials honest. Unfortunately, they are also dependent on the government for the news, so the government officials have some leverage over them, and they end up in a symbiotic relationship.
Where is the coercion, you ask? One could argue that this is not a problem of freedom of the press, but rather excess power in the government. Coercion is inherent in all things governmental, because that is its definition: it is that agency authorized to initiate force. Furthermore it raises its revenues (taxes) by force, unlike any business, and can eliminate its competition by force. Its operations must therefore be kept maximally transparent.
That is weird, I saw tons of porn in Gardenmoen airport (the main airport outside of Oslo)
Which is different because in the states you can't put porn where kids can get it.
Aren't Norwegian cabdrivers handing out condoms?
I thought sex and scenery were the only things going for Norway, I guess now freedom of the press can tie for #3
Neither
For one, I wouldn't send tanks into Arafat's compound every time Hamas bombed. I would work with Arafat to consolidate his security forces to ensure that the extremist methods of the terrorists groups (which you group with all of Palestine) are rendered frivolous - Let Palestine police themselves. One of things you are forgetting is that Israel was to leave the occupied territories as part of Oslo, in addition, during the "Oslo years", there were NO suicide bombings (please show me your source for the 300+ civilian casulaties you mentioned) as the terrorists waited for Israel to get off the land Israel decided to take over and build on.
What do you think of sending tanks into Tim McVeigh's hometown because he bombed a building? Sounds Stupid doesn't it - but that is essentially what Sharon does every time something goes down. There are 2 sides to this story and I feel you have left out 50% of this story out. Get informed on *both* sides of the issue...I assure you, if you were to consider this situation
- ****objectively****
, it would make you puke to defend Israel.ymmv
I don't doubt the Holocaust happened. But I wasn't there, nor do I know any one who was there. So it is all heresay of hearsay, or history books and The History Channel.
;)
Right but i have seen enough interviews on TV from
People who *have* been there.
Those people have no reason to lie. What could anyone do to 90 year old men and women?
Not much i'd say.
My friend says these Jewish men were told to make up the terrible stories, they were told to do so by Jewish leaders who were never in the camps, and they had to make up the stories so that the world would give the Jewish leaders whatever they wanted, which was power.
I do think that this is possible. There may have been camps where people have been handled correctly. Im even damn sure those camps did exist. But the majority were KZs "as seen on TV" or how else can one explain 6 million dead victims.
But if I published this anecdote in Germany, I would be arrested for it
That might be correct. Oh and i would not shoot you. That's against the law
Oh, and President Clinton was "was a genius (sp?) in rethorics and speach," too, but I don't consider that a redeeming quality. The ooze that comes out of a zit has more going for it than that, for the exact reason that the ooze won't brainwash millions of people to support it.
Correct.
BTW (sp?) stands for (spelling?). Thanks for copying that.
If memory serves, most firearms deaths in the United States are /not/ accidental -- they're either suicides (quite a few) or homicides (quite often among acquaintances, incidentally; strangers may have less _reason_ to kill you than a competitor, or somebody who feels you crossed him, or so forth).
"Random citizen blows away another one without intending to do so" is pretty rare compared to your run-of-the-mill deliberate shooting, even during hunting seasons.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Personally, I'd prefer no one could get a gun at all; this way, no one could ever be shot, but somehow I guess this is much more difficult.
Except by those that are "allowed" to have guns. Like the military, the FBI, the police,....
The LAST defense against a government gone bad is armed revolt. Shame on us if we as the American people allow things to get that bad, but I'm not about to allow that last defense to go by the wayside just because you're squeamish about whether or not your neighbor is intelligent enough to operate one properly. If you don't like the idea of people owning guns, move to Iraq, where it's not allowed.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Religion in North America is not treated special, simply like a charity. There are NO SPECIAL POWERS.
That's why religion is in such a deep crisis in the USA. Who is going to worship a God that doesn't even have special powers?
RMN
~~~
Not that I agree with what is happening between Israelis and Palestinians, but let's not forget that Israel is a country, and Palestine DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST. How would you like it if a bunch of guys decided to declare your backyard as "The state of confusion", and started making attacks against your home? Or started shooting at you when you tried to cross "their territory" to take the garbage out to the curb?
Before thise degenerates in to a flame war, I'll say this. These people need a country. However, they also need to stop killing each other. Blowing up children is not a good way to get people to be sympatheic to your cause.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Perhaps because no news is good news? :-)
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
In time of war, the government assumes extraordinary powers, temporarily restricting the rights of the people in order to save them from a greater imminent threat to those same rights. It is no coincidence that the US Government has chosen the terminology of war to pursue its recent goals. We have now a War on
l ofrights. phps _of_f reedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.htm l
-Poverty
-Crime
-Drugs
-Terrorism
The beauty (if you happen to be inside the government monopoloy) of a war on an abstract concept is that the concept never surrenders and the war never ends, so the temporary extra powers become permanent, and eventually taken for granted.
Any erosion in press freedom (or press access to government officials) is part of a larger context of increasing government size and power, and reciprocally eroding human rights. This sort of report is the equivalent of an annoying fly biting the sheeple; they will quickly go back to grazing.
Those who are concerned should review their Constitution and Bill of Rights:
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/bil
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charter
and check them for erosion. Those who are really concerned should join the Free State Project:
http://www.FreeStateProject.org
Hey, maybe Slashdot should have been on the list too. This exchange we have had certainly would boost it's 'freedom of the press' numbers.
As I said, I don't doubt the official story, but I certainly feel grown people should be able to discuss it like this, without worrying about being arrested. As far as why would my friend's Jewish friends lie back then, many people do what their leaders tell them to. Of course they could be lieing now instead. I don't know, either way.
And the (sp?) was not a problem. "Hooked on Copy-and-Paste" worked for me.
No worries: the First Amendment was just a bug, and it's been fixed:
n t. html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3501/first_amendme
"WASHINGTON, DC--Federal officials unveiled the newly updated Bill Of Rights 2.0 at last weekend's Govworld Expo '99. The enhanced version of the document is said to be free of the First Amendment bug which had plagued previous releases."
Pardon my mistake.
-He wasn't linking guns to terrorism. He was linking the threatened use of guns against government officials as terrorism.-
He wasn't directly linking them, but the media and our government is. The truth is that there are much better forms of terrorism that involve household products. Take Columbine for instance, what if they blew up the school instead of shooting people? Fifteen people dead would have been nothing compared to the casualties from a full explosion.
Using guns against politicians is generally not to incite terror among the masses, but to create political reform or revolution.
I do believe the Federal government is afraid of the "50+ yr-old rednecks practicing with semiautomatics in the woods", not in a direct battle though. A couple of Apache helicopters could take them and thier fortifications out in minutes. The problem is that one these people can easily get ahold of chemicals to make explosives and do something like say...take out the Patent & Trademark Office. As much as some people hate the PTO, what is left of our current economy would be completely devastated without it, even being without it for a few years.
Or a non-redneck terrorist could with the help of a few individuals pull off a "fight club" type situation.
See the problem is our government and society is setup like a big bulky machine with a hard thick shell (with a few small holes). Anyone living on the inside of the machine could easily knock out just a few small gears to cause the machine to destroy itself. Not to mention What would the rest of the world do if the "policeman" was temporarily out of commision? I gave PTO as an example, but there are countless key points one could hit. I could name a hundred, but I don't feel like giving out too many ideas to people who might potentially use them.
Anyone can kill just about anyone else, but in some situations it requires you to make a trade, your life for thiers.
The only way to stop people from doing stuff like this is to remove the desire and incentive. All security holes cannot be plugged.
Diclaimer: I do not support terrorist actions!!!
Ever hear of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
. 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
I can publish / say anything I damn well want.
From the article:
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
Okay so wait, journalists are knowingly witholding information during legal proceedings, and going into areas which they do not have authorization to be. Going with this reasoning we could also rank poorly because journalists were arrested for harassment, breaking and entering, slander and even assault and battery. Sounds to me like it's their own damn fault they got busted.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Sorry for the rant, and this is not meant to be a troll, but tell your friend he's nuts.
You are right about that. He is certainly a little nuts. I just don't have solid proof he's wrong. And I can't afford to go to Europe to verify for myself.
yeh, who the hell could stand up to those red-coats anyway!
The military and logistical support of France?
or how could a ragtag group of frenchies stand up to their imperial govt...
Wasn't due to gun ownership, I can tell you that.
Which side would you be referring to here, BTW?
(FWIW, I tend to feel that the whole situation there is insane. I don't believe that they will ever resolve it, but just keep slaughtering each other till the world ends, over a place that people call The Holy Land. Such a pointless waste, words can't express the stupidity of it.)
Incidentally, it'd be rather ironic if, in a discussion of freedom of speech, we got modded down for being offtopic. Wouldn't it??
Be careful! New moon tonight.
you would notice that it says the U.S. is so bad because 1: It imprisons journalists who refuse to give up their sources and 2: Some journaists were arrested for crossing security lines at official buildings. While at the same time it lists the murder of journalists in other countries as the offense. I think the problem is more that journalists here think they are above the law then that they are being oppressed. Then again, everyone but white, straight males in this country is claiming to be oppressed.
In addition, this was based on a survey given to Journalists. No offense, but the journalists in the U.S. are the biggest bunch of crying babies to every walk the face of the earth. Did you EVER see a news story about something another reporter or newscaster did wrong? Do reporters or news casters ever cheat on their spouse? Who knows, but if a politician does you'll know all the details the next day.
I'm sorry but that report is so skewed that it's not even worth taking seriously. It's like giving a survey to Linux users only to ask them which is the best operating system. And to compare being arrested because you crossed a security line when you were told not to with reporters being killed or tortured for saying something they weren't supposed to, I think you loose all credibility.
The U.S. is so bad, Bla Bla Bla. But everyone and their damn brother wants to come here. I'll tell you what, if the U.S. sucks sooooo bad, then why don't all these fools just stay in their own country or go to Canada or Finland or where ever.
The best news sites are, of course, on the Net and so are transnational with no censorship. For a good international site updated daily try , although common dreams, buzzflash and alternet are very good too.
This story is labelled "Censorship" - should be "United States"
The rest of the world (oh yeah, that's more Internet users than USA - even Europe is more than USA) don't really care about your country.
For all the "free speech" bullshit, face some facts for once.
This is a US national story, not a Censorship story.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
The original post said to travel to Europe and find real proof. Because my only sources of data are books and The History Channel. These don't count as 'solid proof' like first-hand witness accounts do.
All of our fine Nation's problems stem from the educational system, which has lost all its power, even to the point that teachers are afraid to discipline ANY student in ANY way for fear of getting on national television. As a matter of fact, even private school teachers I know of award A's and B's to students who are obviously failing the class, simply because the school is afraid of parents pulling their children out of the school. Students graduate high school without knowing jack. This has turned into a daycare system rather than an educational one. This leads to problems such as:
- People believing EVERYTHING they read.
- People believing EVERYTHING they hear.
- People expecting the government to take care of everything, entering into every aspect of private citizens' lives and pocketbooks in the process, as opposed to the correct system called individual responsibility.
Fix the educational system, get rid of 90% of the government (thus creating opportunities for private businesses to handle the functions that have no business being in the government), and get rid of the crap that hacks away at our individual freedoms one by one.With an academic system in place that teaches people to speak and write correctly from day one, and no restrictions on what you can say and write, we'll have a lot of bullshit to filter through, but at least we'll have our freedom, and that's worth more than all the alleged safety in the world.
If there was a law saying no one can repeat material critical of the Govt., for instance, it would apply to "all other peopole" as well as the press, right?
Which of course is why the framers included freedom of the press with freedom of speech in the same protection: Congress shall make NO law that reduces the scope of either.
You can be sure they juggled the criteria to make the US look as bad as possible, and they only shook us down to 17? Not very impressive.
Also, rankings are meaningless when absolute scores are clustered. On an absolute scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being perfect freedom, All of Western Europe and the US are probably bunched near the top with scores in the 90s, and the Middle East is probably clustered near the bottom with scores in the teens.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
German news magazine Der Spiegel has an article on the same topic, with a bit more background information. Also in German.
President of the United States, George W. Bush, when asked about the concerns of the two countries, responded "New Zealand? Isn't that part of Australia anyway?"
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Does this mean these other countries are Hated even more for their freedoms?
Yeah I would read the icelandic press but I don't know what the pop up thats says "farðu bandarikjunum" means.
--Joey
Translation: they sent questionares to 50 reporters in different countries asking how things were in their own country, and tallied the response.
The problem with this is that it's doesn't rank things like hard statistics, but ranks how people perceive their own freedoms in their own country. A country like the United States, which tends to be very self-critical over relatively minor infractions of personal liberty (such as the arrest of a dumb reporter who decides to test the airport security check-in with a real gun) is bound to rank lower than a country like Costa Rica (where reporters are probably happy that they are no longer being arrested and subject to torture for "insulting politicians.")
While this is an interesting web site and article, and a great source of inspiration for heated debates around the water cooler, I would take the overall ranking with a huge mound of salt.
And notice the bias, as well:
In the context provided, this implies that journalists are regularly murdered in the United States. And, by ranking a country that just 8 months ago stopped giving prison sentences to those found guilty of "insulting" public officials, it implies (by having a higher ranking than the United States) that U.S. reporters are regularly jailed for "insulting" public officials.
I'm not saying this bias is intentional. But the sodium levels in my blood have reached critical.
Uh, yes. That is precisely what freedom of the press is. If you don't like it, start your own newspaper. Rights exist because of ownership. If you own a printing press, then you may use it however you like, so long as you're not violating the rights of other, e.g. by libel.
You are conflating private freedoms with abusive monopolies and anti-trust law, which is a whole different ball o'wax altogether.
You think they didn't know? I would rather suspect that they did --
A _I naction/MarySchiavoStory.html
I chose my words poorly. I was actually being sardonic, but that didn't come across.
I *do* think they knew that an airliner could be commandeered and used as a large guided missile. It was only partly due to the stupidity of not applying the 80/20 rule and doing the simple things.
but the economics and politics of the time prohibited doing much about it.
1- Airlines weren't exactly in great financial shape before then.
2- Security in terms of intrusive searches and El Al-style pre-boarding interviews (the 'correct' way to handle it, probably, from a security POV) takes a huge amount of time, training and money.
3- Adding things like bomb detectors increases time delays due to needing to check out false positives, e.g. nylon stockings giving off nitrogen vapors.
4- The customers were already pissed off in terms of delays, pre-boarding waits, and so forth.
Security costs. How secure do you want to be? I'll take the cheap 80%. El Al, after the famous hijacking 30 or so years ago came to a vital conclusion. Nobody, ever, gets into the cockpit. How expensive is that? How much does it inconvenience passengers? False positives? nope. It costs, next to nada.
Any airline that would have unilaterally boosted security to the point where it were actually meaningful (e.g. that hasn't been achieved yet...)
Locking the door would have been very meaningful to the cities of New York and Washington. The passengers might still have been screwed.
might have been pushed into bankruptcy by customers fleeing to competitors who could field many more flights per day with far less inconvenience.
I'm no risk management expert, but I don't believe that. ValueJet went under because they were slack and carried hazardous cargo on a passenger flight.
Were the FAA to have tried, it would have been political suicide for the administration.
I agree, as did Mary Schiavo who saw it all coming.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/FA
17th? Really, even after Frau Dowd refers to the person sitting in the highest office in the country as the "Boy Emperor" ... and the worse she gets for it is a severe fisking from a grad student at Oxford?
Puleaeeasse! Spare me.
--- have you healed your church website?
Oh come on - "Whatever You Want" wasn't that bad!
Certainly not worth having them shot!
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
I saw on 60 minutes that Finland has the highest level of depression and suicide rate in the world (grain of salt may be required). Perhaps their problem is not people killing other people, but people killing themselves. Maybe gun control works better in that kind of country.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
This is a lesson we must never forget; that even a Constitutional Democracy isn't immune to falling under the spell of a power-hungry, charismatic dictator.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
This ranking seems to be more about popular perceptions of trends than actual absolute measures of freedom.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Unfortunately, there's no mention of what ClearChannel can do.
Wow. You must be the greatest reporter on earth after all of that advice. Oh, I'll file those under completely fucking obvious.
/.er. They are, on average, as much of a journalist as I am a server farm admin. Just trying to expand the knowledge.
And refresh my memory on what the PR people do for a living? Fuck up your shit royally is what they do. Put a spin on a tragedy. The only good PR person is the hot young PR person that you're banging after hours.
Otherwise its all this:
"Chemical explosion? What chemical explosion? Oh, you mean those innocent dead people next to the chemical explosion? We'll we didn't tell them to walk down that street?"
Cmon man. You really got to read the gentle subtext about this. I am not referring this to other journalists, I am giving an example of the kind of things that cause journalists to go to jail to the average
Recently we've seen several gag orders from the courts and a recent study shows the courts in general have a very dim view of journalistic freedom.
Given that, either
However they all could learn a lot from countries like Sweden which has had a much stronger version integrated into their country's constitution for over 336 years. Basically, the only exceptions are individual privacy, protection of plant and animal species, national defence, national economy, and prevention of crime. Every thing else is there for the asking.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
..edited by Kristina Borjesson
... Leading journalists expose the myth of a free press"
"Into the buzzsaw
Excellent eye-opener into the death of investigative journalism in the US, thanks largely (but not only) to the overwhelming power of the modern news corporation, and how their profit motives interfere with reporting.
Tanzania was suveyed, but not New Zealand... I'm feeling a little left out here... I mean, throw us a bone already.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
You are exactly right. It's a shame so few people take the time to actually read what it's all about. On a slightly related issue, in Sweden it is actually illegal for journalists to reveal anonymous sources (to law enforcement agencies, for example) -- journalists can be prosecuted for it and it has been known to happen.
Norway may have free press, but it must have the most crappy and populistic jounalists in the world. All major newspapers contain loads of meaningless information about celebrities, and tons of factual errors.
Almost everyone I know are sick and tired of their bullshit.
In one commonly aired piece of footage (which I think was taken by Reuters), an elderly woman was cheering along with some kids at a market place. A team of journalists at a media watchdog program from SVT managed to find this woman and interview her. She had not, at the point the footage was taken, heard anything about the WTC attack. She later saw herself on video in conjunction with a story about the attack and was very unhappy with what the network had done. I saw this interview myself. Journalists from a media network (I think it was Reuters too) had actually travelled around the area attempting to find cheering crowds (they attested to this) but could not find one. A documentary about this was aired on SVT (Swedish public television) last year or earlier this year (can't quite remember).
This doesn't of course mean that no-one anywhere cheered the attack. It would surprise me if some didn't, much like how some Americans cheer when arabs are killed. But it was still a dishonest thing to do by the networks. Much of the western media used the exact same clip.
Don't forget Israel didn't even existed 60 years ago. It was built on top of somebody's else land. And without that "somebody" agreement. In this regard I think you got your backyard analogy backward.
The media situation here is a bit confusing. The Irish constitution preaches freedom of religion, yet Catholicism pervades the media, currently in the form of reports of priests playing with little boys. The RTÉ (state TV) has a daily Catholic "Angelus" (some kind of sunset prayer), yet Richard Dawkins was on a few weeks ago, dumping on organized religion. When a jounalist is killed here, for getting too close to outing a drug dealer, it gets made into a Hollywood movie!
(this is not a
This is a lesson we must never forget; that even a Constitutional Democracy isn't immune to falling under the spell of a power-hungry, charismatic dictator.
Such as Senator Palpatine.
The United States stood at 17 in a world-wide index of the journalist organization "reporter without borders"
An issue with America is that news may not get reported that is not in the interests of the media giants that are reporting it.
Among the 20 countries with the "roughest offences" were European countries former Soviet republics, African, asiatic and Latin American states.
Sounds about right. You can't have a bullshit state with a free press.
I live in Wiesbaden, so I found interesting your description of the German system's distinction between freedom of the press and an ordinary citizen's freedom of speech. I find the distinction to be a mistake, as the two activities are more similar than they are different. That Germany doesn't fully value freedom of speech is evidenced by their laws against Nazi talk, symbols, and writing.
i on /t mlw .fija.org
>It does not bother Americans that a court in one state or
>even town will interpret your basic rights differently than
>another judge a few miles down the road, since they have
>been told that this is the way it has to be.
Um, in that last phrase you went too far. There are other reasons for our decentralized system "not to bother Americans" besides blind acceptance. Europeans have an amusing (given their history) faith in the infallibility of The State: if they could just pick the smartest people and give them the best education in L'Ecole National d'Administration, the emerging Enarques will be uniquely fit to run the country. Well, we don't believe in a Solomonesque elite; the truth is harder to establish, and maybe the best search algorithm uses parallel processing.
That we are "stuck with a legal system that never made it past the 18th Century" could be re-phrased to say that our legal system has worked successfully for over 200 years; age is not necessarily a sign of weakness (though we tech geeks have the tendency to think so). You can point to many newer systems that have not worked as well, besides that of the USSR. How else is the US system anachronistic, and what wonderful innovations have other countries come up with? I have not been overly impressed by German law in those few occasions when I have bumped into it. You must not like shopping on Sundays; there is an innovation that the US adopted long ago.
>Trial-by-jury is something that the rest of the free world thinks is only
>a minor improvement on using a lottery or chicken guts to decide who is guilty.
Trial-by-jury affords more advantages than a simple Delphi Effect means of finding the truth. Via the doctrine of Jury Nullification, it gives ordinary citizens, people who live in your community, the power to protect you from unjust laws. If the people were informed about it (JN is of course not taught in our public schools), they could use it to not convict those accused of non-violent drug offenses. That the US are now the country with the highest percentage of its population in prison, and most of the recent growth is due to the federal Drug War, there clearly needs to be some additional check on federal power.
http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/nullificat
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/0412.h
http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm
http://ww
>Americans, on the other hand, don't have a federal law book
There has been quite an explosion in federal law in the past couple of decades; I assume that it is kept somewhere in a book.
"That is weird, I saw tons of porn in Gardenmoen airport (the main airport outside of Oslo)"
This is the soft core porn. Shops are allowed to put this wherever they want. It cannot contain any erect male genetalia, although I find that kind of sexist.
"Aren't Norwegian cabdrivers handing out condoms?"
Yeah, but this have more to do with sexually transmitted diseases.
"I thought sex and scenery were the only things going for Norway, I guess now freedom of the press can tie for #3"
Actually, we're also pretty much up there in music. No, not the Britney top-10 stuff, but jazz, electronica and the dark and scary kinds of rock.
Yeah it's volunteer based but those volunteers are 18+. not 50.... The 50+ rednecks already are taking up arms, and have been for a couple decades at least. And you know what? I am only scared of them accidentally shooting their kids; I am not the least bit scared of them shooting at the cops. Because they won't. And I don't think the cops are the least bit scared of them doing so; they are scared of them shooting at their wives and their former employers. Look, I've actually read Thomas Jefferson, and I can tell you for a fact, the rednecks in the woods do not represent him.
It most certianly did have something to do with the state of Israel, the state that the Jews were promising to create and were already making headway in doing so. Weizman who was president of the World Zionists organization went to the Paris Peace conference and stated that he was hoping for 70,000-80,000 Jews to arrive into Palestine each year, he then went on to say that they would create a state and that Palestine would become "as Jewish as England is English". This sentiment and attitude was echoed by all of the major players in the Zionists movement, since the turn of the century and right up until this present time.
Now dont tell me that you wouldnt wage war on a people that came into your country en masse, state to the world you were going to create your own goverment to take over ALL the land and as Ben Gurions put it "Reduce the population to a community of woodcutters and waiters". I know I sure as hell would have something to say about it.
When all the neighboring Arab nations invaded Israel in 1948, it was billed as a war of "extermination".
'all the Arab nations' doesnt really mean much in terms of military might. The Israeli army was just as strong if not stronger at the time...obviously The zionists made it clear from the beginning that they wanted ALL of Israel, and were willing to ethnicly cleanse the population (by Compulsory transfer or other means..) to achieve this goal. Not only were they willing, but they knew that this was the only method to re-claim the "promised land". The JEWS made it into a matter of "its either you or us".
They focused on killing Israeli civilians instead of the military to the point that it seriously hurt their war effort.
I hope your not suggesting that they targeted civilians to the point that the military was affected little. 20% of the dead were civilians, 80% military. Also, interesting statistic to note is that half of the Israeli casualties were caused in Israeli offensives OUTSIDE the area specified by the UN.
When the PLO was founded in 1964 and immediately set about trying to kill Israeli civilians, that certainly wasn't a reaction to events which happened three years later.
This could be well true, but dont confuse the PLO of yesteryear to that of today.
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, and The Al-Aqsa Martyrs gang all have the same avowed goal: Getting rid of Israel completely. They're not shy about saying that, either.
and Vice Versa. The Zionists have the same goals of getting rid of Palestine (which they have done) and ridding themselves of the Palestinian people, the burden that comes with usurping their land. The following comes to us from an Israeli PM "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it."
They will not accept the existence of Israel at all.
As the jews wont accept a REAL state of Palestine (yes I DO challenge you to show me a time when Israel has done so). So basically...that makes them both as bad as eachother..but lets not forget, it was the Jews who Usurped Palestine.
They will not accept the existence of any Jews in the Middle East (which in time-honored blood-and-soil fashion they regard as "Arab land") who are not under Arab rule (or at all, depending on which spokesman you listen to). The "moderates" in those groups claim that they will accept the presence of those Jews whose ancestors lived on that land continuously since biblical times, and kill or deport the others;
are you making these points to somehow distinguish the high moral posistion of Israel Vs lowly dog arabs? Israel's posistion on the Arabs is just as extreme, and whats even scarier, is that they have implemented there policies and are continuing to do so.
the main stream would rather kill any Jews they can get their hands on and disposess the rest (never mind the 850,000 or so Jewish refugees in Israel who were born in Arab nations,
DISPOSSES!?!?!?!?!?! You mean take back the land that was taken from them....
People always say "oh, they will drive the Jews into the sea". Give me a break. Im sure there is much re-sentment against the Jews, most of which is well deserved. There is never going to be any sort of 'mass-murders' of Jews at the Palestinians hands....Israel has the 4th most poweful army in the world, the palestinian people are nothing more than a mosquito to them, and they treat them as such. and lets not forget the 700,000 palestinians who have been forced from their own houses and land and have been told by the Israeli Goverment they are not allowed to return..ever.
but had all their property confiscated and had to flee for their lives;
As the Palestinians had their property confiscated/looted and they had to flee their land...that which is now Israel. another quote from Ben Gurion "[They] said it was imperative to expel the Arabs [in the area] and to burn the villages. For me, the matter was very difficult. [But] they said that they were not sure [the kibbutz could continue to exist] if the villages remained intact and [if] the Arab inhabitants were not expelled, for they [i.e. the Palestinian Arabs villagers] would [later] attack them [i.e. Mishmar Ha'emek].
When Israel unilaterally withdrew from South Lebanon a couple of years back (though they had a perfect right to be there under international law, on the grounds that the Lebanese had been -- once again! -- coming over the border and massacring Israeli civilians)
Actually, they were told to withdraw. Yes they did withdraw, not before committing a couple of massacres on refugee camps though.
Bottom line: Giving in to some of the terrorists' demands will not encourage them to drop the rest of their demands. To the contrary, they'll take it as encouragement to redouble their efforts. When you give in to extortion, the extortionist always demands more. Always.
Bottomline is... When a people invade your country, take your land, bulldoze/burn your villages, expel a significant % of the population tellin them they can never return, Setup checkpoints that control your comings and goings everyday, Issue you with ID cards that must be carried with you at alltimes (you are jailed if you dont have it on you), taxed heavily by an apartheid and racists goverment (yes Israel is making a lot of money from The westbank and Gaza), having your dignity taken from you...and YOU DO NOTHING, they will continue to walk all over you forever.Always.
Ending the settlements is not Hamas' endgame. Their goal w/r/t Israel, like most of the rest of the Arab world, is ethnic cleansing on a grand scale, and they'll settle for nothing less.
lol...Israel has an Overwhelmingly powerful army. No arab nation is going to touch them. Stop playing up this 'ethnic cleansing' argument. Its not going to happen, period. Whereas the Israeli's have shown that they are ready and willing to partake in the ethnic cleansing and compulsory transfer of the Palestinians.
They'll never accomplish that, but bribing them to kill more civilians won't help them come to grips with the reality that a reasonable, just peace is the only option anybody's got (where "reasonable", "just", and "peace" mean "NOBODY kills ANYBODY" -- none of this European notion that "peace" means "the Jews stop defending themselves while the Arabs go on killing".)
The Zionists have never been interested in a reasonable and just peace, never. If you want I could sit here all night pointing out facts that show this is not the case, but I would rather you research some Zionists history yourself.
"We do not seek an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs in order to secure the peace. Of course we regard peace as an essential thing. It is impossible to build up the country in a state of permanent warfare. But peace for us is a means, and not an end. The end is the fulfillment of Zionism in its maximum scope. Only for this reason do we need peace, and do we need an agreement." Another quote from Ben Gurion
...Im sure you understand what "Maximum Scope" means....it means all of Pleastine...in fact, it means MORE than Palestine. Nothing has changed. They dont want peace, they want Palestine. They cannot obtain "greater israel" and judea through peace, the palestinians wont simply hand it over. That leaves no other option for them.
If military force could stop terrorism, shouldn't Israel, Sri Lanka, and the United States (to name a few) have gotten rid of it by now? It sort of can...but not sort of cant... Many an attempt of terrorism is stopped by the Israeli military....because they have a military. Whereas Israeli State Terror can go unchecked in the occupied terrortories...because the Palestinians have no military.
Your point is what? There is an armed terrorist group on the verge of destroying the PTO? I doubt most militia wannabes could distinguish the PTO from the PTA. They're after the BATF and FBI, not the PTO, and if they ever actually did anything to threaten any of those organizations, they would be dead in the water, whether they did it with explosives, firearms, Draino, or fucking cheerios.
Or a non-redneck terrorist could with the help of a few individuals pull off a "fight club" type situation.
Which means what? That they could hire Brad Pitt to kick my ass? I'll take my chances.
What would the rest of the world do if the "policeman" was temporarily out of commision?
Temporarily kick anybody's ass that tries any bullshit just because the cops are out of the picture.
Honestly I am not afraid of the federal government or of any terrorist (Muslim or Xian) taking my rights/guns/property/speech/wellbeing... I am afraid of my fellow citizen voluntarily giving up these things in exchange for a false promise of protection from fucking ghosts.
The guy who was shot in sweden lived (though just barely, he took a 9mm in the chest), eventually made a full recovery, went to trial and recieved a harsh sentence for throwing stones at the police.
The guy in italy however was shot in the head and died at the scene.
I had friends at the scene in Sweden, and it was a really fucked up mess. Total chaos, with protesters throwing stones at the police and the police throwing, and finally shooting back. Total confusion with totally innocent people getting in the way.
The aftermath is still playing out in the courts.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Care to substantiate this in any way? Or are you really so full of shit as you seem to be?
Most of those shootings are by people who have guns illegally. Legal gun owners tend to follow the law, you know.
Murphy was an optimist.
The PIRA has assassinated journalists when it has suited them, as have other paramilitary organisations (both republican and loyalist) in Northern Ireland.
Silencing critical opposition has long been a strategy of terrorist groups, and the PIRA is no exception to this rule.
I can't find a link right now, but I do recall the PIRA claiming responsibility for the murder of a journalist who was investigating the links between paramilitaries and drugs running (organised crime is the main source of funds for these organisations). If I remember correctly, this murder was of a catholic woman, and took place in the Republic of Ireland, something the majority of vocal republicans found particularly distasteful.
Of course, the PIRA has killed over 1,800 men, women and children from various backgrounds - soldiers, policemen, emergency servicemen, politicians and ordinary men and women - so it's not surprising that there are a few reporters amongst its long list of victims.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
"An issue with America is that news may not get reported that is not in the interests of the media giants that are reporting it."
That's a good point, but the report mainly concerns itself with the use of restrictive laws and force to stifle the diversity of the media. It specifically doesn't deal with issues of pervasive media bias or self-censorship by the media.
According to the article the U.S. is down at #17 because there are reporters in jail for refusing to reveal their sources, and there's been an increase in the number of arrests of reporters in security sensitive areas since 9/11.
On the other hand, Canada came in 5th place in the rankings apparently because Canada's not doing as much as the 4 1st place countries to support Freedom of the Press internationally.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
We are the freest society on earth. Until you can point to a freer one, you're the one with dElusions.
Yawn, stretch, here we go: Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands to say a few from around where I live.
And guess what? I don't even try to point out which one of those tops the list.
Does anybody know why the newspaper business is called the 'Fourth Estate?' What are the other three? Does it include ALL media (TV/cable, radio, print), or is it restricted to print?
-- Hamster
Actually, I'm referring to both sides. The entire situation there has been, and continues to be, handled badly. But, outside of finding both people homes, I don't know what's going to resolve the problem.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
You only come off sounding like a bitter, America hating, blame America for the world's ills Socialist.
and think you are the nutcase, not me. Try a decent argument, it plays better to an intelligent audience.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Actually, the extra area Israel now occupies was taken when the countries surrounding Israel decided to try to invade and take Israel back off the map. Maybe YOU should take your own advice, retard.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
In the RSF.FR article, my country's name is correctly spelled as Chile.
:) :p
It's a widely known fact that french-speaking people spell it as "Chili", so personally I don't mind.
Anyways, that coincidence of names is just that, a coincidence. The word 'Chile', refering to the country, probably comes from a quechuan expression that means "the last land". While 'chili', refering to the pepper (Capsicum sp.), comes from the nahuatl language.
So don't be confused so easily.
--- Sueños del Sur - a webcomic about four young siblings
so is romania (45th) not considered part of europe anymore?
(Heading rapidly OT...)
Germany's an odd case because it had been forced to become a constitutional democracy by the treaty of Versailles. The public didn't really want or like it - a majority of votes, by the end, were going to parties who opposed democracy and wanted to rewrite the constitution.
Combine an imposed democracy with a state with severe economic problems and a feeling of hurt about the way WW1 had ended, and a dictator who said they'd make Germany great again was pretty much inevitable at some point.
The same could happen elsewhere (Bush sometimes seems to want to head in that direction, as does Blair) but it's far less likely IMO.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
We're Number 17! We're Number 17! Woot!
Damn, why haven't I got any moderating points?
Seriously: This 'we have to have guns to keep our freedom' makes me scream. You wouldn't last a minute against government troops. So, you might argue, if all gun owners together oppose the government...? Well, yes, if all unarmed people together oppose the government, the result is the same, because they can't go shooting too many people all at once. Once you've got a reasonably free country, guns aren't gonna increase freedom. They're just a danger if kids take them to school and run amok, or whatever.
One of my pet peeves, and a large one. Guns are used to kill people, therefore they have to be controlled.
Have you ever actually seen a gun? They are quite easy to use. You can sum up an entire gun safety course with one line:
There is no question that guns are dangerous, but they are really only accidentally dangerous in the hands of small children and people under the influence of alcohol (or some other drug). Your neighbor is not going to "forget" how to use his gun and shoot you.
Yes, China and Iraq are excellent examples of what happens to a country when the right to bear arms is violated. Great Britain, Germany, Switzerland, and Iceland (all countries with strict gun control laws) are all ruled by tyrants that oppress their people. Good grief. I'm pro-gun, but your argument holds zero water. Why dont you comment on how gun control laws simply don't reduce gun related crime instead?
You may be referring to Veronica Guerin, an investigative journalist murdered by Dublin criminals in the late 1990s. No PIRA links there. Not that it really matters whether the people they murdered were journos or not, I suppose -- they were all people and each murder is completely objectionable on that point alone.
mutta ollaan silti ykkösiä, jeejee :)
Here's an interesting fact: The government has a lot more guns, jails, and other things to make your life miserable with than it did 226 years ago. Good luck with your little campaign of terror. For now, I'll stick to voting and other more traditional methods of political change.
Yes. A previous post of mine a few weeks ago mentioned this. Hitler simply took the already present anger over Germany's treatment, focused it on a small group, and rode it to power.
First heard this from my high school history teacher. All other accounts I had heard before that glossed over it, and made it seem that he magically made the Germans hate the Jews. He only found a way to direct their hatred, and the Jews were a convenient target.
In the U.S. (or in many other Western countries) there is no (official!) state meddling with religion like in Germany (for historic reasons yes, but it still limits religious equality)
So was Darwin right, or could some schools in the US determine otherwise
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Yes. A previous post of mine a few weeks ago mentioned this. Hitler simply took the already present anger over Germany's treatment, focused it on a small group, and rode it to power.
First heard this from my high school history teacher. All other accounts I had heard before that glossed over it,
Sometimes with history it's the really important points which get glossed over.
and made it seem that he magically made the Germans hate the Jews. He only found a way to direct their hatred, and the Jews were a convenient target.
It dosn't appear to have been specifically directed against Jews, though. Just about anyone not a "patriotic German" was a convenient target.
Actually, that's in the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution.
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
I still argue that there are responsibilities of good citizenship that come with the rights we enjoy as citizens.
Don't get me wrong: I strongly believe in and support the first amendment. But I also believe that you're a coward if you hide behind the First Amendment and don't have the courage stand behind your words.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
There have been reports about possible celebrations elsewhere and I'm convinced some are genuine. But the documentary depicting the specific footage I discussed didn't really leave much room for doubt that there was foul play involved (whether intentional or not).
Not all journalists are writers. Look up my bio on
I would however, love to send you a tape of my best work. OR I could send you all of my work on VHS if you have a couple of packing crates and a truck.
SO FUCK OFF.
No my point is not that there is an armed terrorist group in the US planning ANYTHING that I know of. My point is that the goverment does fear these Militia's because quite a few of them are intelligent enough to pull off mass destruction against the United States. Anybody who would take out a place like PTO would probably be doing it to ruin the financial infrastructure of the United States, apparently I need to spell it out for you. If Intel/Micron/IBM/HP..... (Thousands of others) are not able to patent thier new technology, they will not release thier new technology until they can patent it. This would kill QUITE a few companies and throw the United States into financial choas. These days the United States is more of a financial power than a military power. If you pull the power on a vacuum cleaner it can be the most sophisticated vacuum in the world and it will still die.
.. http://www.parascope.com/ds/documentslibrary/docum ents/mkultrahearing/intro.htm let's not forget radiation experiments on US citizens http://www.antenna.nl/wise/441/4361.html .
"and if they ever actually did anything to threaten any of those organizations"
Yes you're right, if they did threaten those organizatiosn they would be dead (or locked up REALLY tight). If they just ACTED, instead of threatening, they could probably catch the United states with it's pants down, all it requires is a little creativity. The US is like Microsoft in that it likes to potray the image of impenetrability.(Usama proved that one, and so did the "hick" Oklahoma city bomber)
"Which means what? That they could hire Brad Pitt to kick my ass? I'll take my chances"
Yeah, Brad Pitt is not too scary I agree. Apparantly you haven't seen "fight club", hate to spoil it for you, they blow-up all credit reporting agency headquarters, if I need to explain the choas that this would create, I will not even bother arguing with you anymore, I'll recommend you go back to first grade so you can argue that 1+1=3 with a teacher (who you might call a dumb redneck) who will insist that it is indeed 2.
"What would the rest of the world do if the "policeman" was temporarily out of commision?
Temporarily kick anybody's ass that tries any bullshit just because the cops are out of the picture"
I am not reffering to literal police, I am reffering to the United States as the policemen of the world. I imagine Israel/Taiwan/Pakistan would be quite vunerable if we were unable to defend them. Though quite a few Allied/NATO/EU countries have the advanced military technology to defend themselves, most of them don't have large enough militaries to launch a multi-front offensive if Israel/Taiwan/Pakistan were attacked. Sure they could hit the big red button that says "NUKE", but I imagine most of them would sit relatively silent on the side until the US could stand itself up to support them. By then it might be too late.
"Honestly I am not afraid of the federal government or of any terrorist (Muslim or Xian) taking my rights/guns/property/speech/wellbeing... I am afraid of my fellow citizen voluntarily giving up these things in exchange for a false promise of protection from fucking ghosts."
The Federal govenment isn't taking your rights away, they are widdling you rights away. They think if they very slowly take them away that you won't notice, and with most people this is true. Most muslim terrorist's won't take them away either, in fact most of them just want us to stop unconditionally supporting Israel, that is it. Most of them don't even want anything crazy like world domination, they just want thier land back. They also want nations somewhat independant of the global market. I can understand not wanting to work for Walmart or McDonald's or losing your culture by taking these companies in. Meanwhile the US bitches that Saddam used chemical weopons against thier own people, well so did we
There are countless other atrocities the United States has performed against it's own citizens if you are just willing to poke your head around and learn the stuff they don't teach you in school.
I agree with you about not trusting the militia's (what you would call ghost's), most of them are filled with insane genuises, obedient dumb henchmen, and the ever rare sane genuises. If a milita was going to pull off something huge it would be most likely the result of an insane genuis, and life would most likely be pretty nasty for years to come.
Or maybe you were reffering to the real terrorists as ghost, I also agree with you there.
I do love the US, even though rights are diminishing, in some countries in the world I could still be executed for writing stuff like this.
No, but you still get to keep your original "0" score! :P
.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
How convenient for you to totally change subject when you've lost the argument. We were talking about freedom, remember?
In the countries I mentioned freedom is a given. It's such a natural part of life that we don't have the need to mention it all the time. It's like writing frontpage news about breathing air.
The country you live in has some weird need of pointing out that you are free. Why is that? Quite frankly, it sounds ridiculous. Maybe it's because you really aren't free? Or did you only get used to doing that during the cold war?
I could be wrong, though. After all, we don't have fences around our houses, metal detectors at schools or a spying organisation. We don't get to enjoy frivolous lawsuits or lovely laws like the Patriot Act and DMCA.
It's not changing the subject. When the government says it has a cut of your income, that's a restriction on your freedom. When 50% or more of the fruits of your labors go to support the government, that's restricting your freedom in the most fundamental way. I ASSUME that's what you mean by "changing the subject." If so, then how do you address the restrictions of gun ownership, political speech, and the absence of double jeopardy protections in many European countries?
/. problem. It's impossible to have a nuanced, intelligent conversation with a non-American about America because non-Americans assume that Americans are all dumb, unsophisticated, provincial boobs who couldn't find their butts in the dark with both hands. While there are boobs in every country and we may or may not have more of our share, we also have well-read, intelligent, sophisticated people who are also patriots.
Also, I think you're forgetting that the article that started this discussion was written to compare freedom of the press in almost all of the nations of the world. And I was responding to people who said Americans only think we're free. I didn't submit the article or post to it originally. I simply responded to closed-minded, ignorant posters who think that being anti-American = being sophisticated.
Here's a big
Just because I defend American doesn't mean I'm blind to its faults. And my saying that America is freer than other countries is not an ignorant knee-jerk statement. I gave facts. No one has addressed those facts or been willing to talk about the freedoms I mentioned above.
You are out of your league, talking about American life. I live here, remember? Metal detectors in schools are unfortunate, but have nothing to do with government intrusion in our lives and contrary to what you see in the media, are rather rare. I have a fence around my back yard only because that's American custom. It's for keeping the DOG in the yard, not for keeping bad guys out.
You don't have a spying organization? Really? I don't know where you live, but I don't believe you. Go ahead and let me know so I can find out the name of your "spying organization."
There was one small grain of truth in what you wrote. We do have a holdover from the cold war. We cherish freedom and we talk about it a lot. And we don't take it for granted. That's why we still have it.
Yes, it's a blog. Sorry if that offends you.
I have no argument with any of your points. Just pointing out some different restrictions on freedom in Europe since so many bash the US in ignorance
:-D
Gun ownership is restricted much more in Europe than in the US. I present that as a fact rather than as a value judgment. I have no intention of arguing the 2nd Amendment here ad nauseum because I have no interest in the subject or the argument.
BTW, I love France. It's my favorite place to visit, and I would love to live there for a few years. I speak French reasonably well.
And for your amusement:
Things I love about France:
1. French people
2. Food & Wine
3. The high level of debate and analytical thought
4. Giverny
5. Museums
6. Paris
7. The south
Yes, it's a blog. Sorry if that offends you.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is ignorant. Teach him.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep. Wake him.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...