[quote]Yes, we have the freedom of speech. It's guaranteed in law to us by the same sentence that give us freedom of the press. It does not, however, free us from responsibility for our actions.[/quote]
As much as u are correct on the second part, imo this list, also includes things like propaganda pressed as truth.
Take a very recent/current war as example, and compare it to the vietnam war.
Actually there were more ppl protesting against this war, then there were toward the vietnam war.
However, it got little to no nationwide coverage. Why?
Journalists who work for CNN, and get pressured to show a 'happy view' or they might not be taken along some other time. It is a very understandable reaction, and there are loads of journalists who only want to put out negative news, giving even a trip to a zoo, the feel of a bad horror movie, but it's about the freedom of speech, choices and views. They are not seperate items.
And the entire western world has this same problem: how much freedom can u give ppl, when they show not the capability of dealing with it in a responsible matter.
Freedom of speach and press is important, but the entire branch organisation should also look at themselves a bit, and ask themselves why the government is trying to put more control on them. The keyword in this is self regulation, this is based on moral feelings of right and wrong, and as soon as u set it off against greed, aka sell more newspapers by big and cool headlines, u create a situation, where this self regulation is harder to do.
As an example: "government official found in Amsterdam whorehouse"
It makes a great headline, but most likely ruins the guy's carreer.
And is it news? if he is a bookkeeper for social housing, does it compromise his function to go to a whorehouse?
Everyone else forgets this after a short smile, and the newspaper just pretty much drove a man to poverty, cause he will most likely get fired, cause no company wants to be associated with that.
"the public has a right to know" This is a typical situation where a moral conscious comes in to play. And at present time, it seems that's what is lacking, and therefor creating a counterreaction by the government.
Not everything is black and white, there are loads of gray shades here, and i'm sorry to say that in countries like the U.S.A. journalists are just as guilty on those results as the government is.
I must say, as a new subscriber here, not from the usa, this is a really entertaining read.
Everything is either yes, or no, black or white, while in reality most things consists of shades of grey.
So yes, democrats will try to forge the elections, and yes, republikans will try the same. The art in this, is to get away with it.
And, to switch to the oversea lingo: All voters, have the moral obligation, to prevent that in any way possible.
What i find strange here is this: Why does neither party insist on international oversight to prevent fraud?
The united nations, wether u like them, or not is not the question here, provides this services a long time for countries.
Is the USA to proud for this, or would it show the world something no one wants to admit.
Next to that, i remember votings all around the world, where physical prove was always required.
If there is doubt on fairness on any election, no matter how small the doubt, it should be taken serious, and even though everyone can keep going on about past elections, i would be more interested in future elections.
As any nerd knows, computers can be hacked, so if u want a secure system, avoid anything that can be compromised.
I find this solution: touch screen to help the blind a bit odd btw, cause, as far as i know, a basic touch screen, displays things, not press relief in to them.
Slashdot Mirror
[quote]Yes, we have the freedom of speech. It's guaranteed in law to us by the same sentence that give us freedom of the press. It does not, however, free us from responsibility for our actions.[/quote] As much as u are correct on the second part, imo this list, also includes things like propaganda pressed as truth. Take a very recent/current war as example, and compare it to the vietnam war. Actually there were more ppl protesting against this war, then there were toward the vietnam war. However, it got little to no nationwide coverage. Why? Journalists who work for CNN, and get pressured to show a 'happy view' or they might not be taken along some other time. It is a very understandable reaction, and there are loads of journalists who only want to put out negative news, giving even a trip to a zoo, the feel of a bad horror movie, but it's about the freedom of speech, choices and views. They are not seperate items. And the entire western world has this same problem: how much freedom can u give ppl, when they show not the capability of dealing with it in a responsible matter. Freedom of speach and press is important, but the entire branch organisation should also look at themselves a bit, and ask themselves why the government is trying to put more control on them. The keyword in this is self regulation, this is based on moral feelings of right and wrong, and as soon as u set it off against greed, aka sell more newspapers by big and cool headlines, u create a situation, where this self regulation is harder to do. As an example: "government official found in Amsterdam whorehouse" It makes a great headline, but most likely ruins the guy's carreer. And is it news? if he is a bookkeeper for social housing, does it compromise his function to go to a whorehouse? Everyone else forgets this after a short smile, and the newspaper just pretty much drove a man to poverty, cause he will most likely get fired, cause no company wants to be associated with that. "the public has a right to know" This is a typical situation where a moral conscious comes in to play. And at present time, it seems that's what is lacking, and therefor creating a counterreaction by the government. Not everything is black and white, there are loads of gray shades here, and i'm sorry to say that in countries like the U.S.A. journalists are just as guilty on those results as the government is.
I must say, as a new subscriber here, not from the usa, this is a really entertaining read. Everything is either yes, or no, black or white, while in reality most things consists of shades of grey. So yes, democrats will try to forge the elections, and yes, republikans will try the same. The art in this, is to get away with it. And, to switch to the oversea lingo: All voters, have the moral obligation, to prevent that in any way possible. What i find strange here is this: Why does neither party insist on international oversight to prevent fraud? The united nations, wether u like them, or not is not the question here, provides this services a long time for countries. Is the USA to proud for this, or would it show the world something no one wants to admit. Next to that, i remember votings all around the world, where physical prove was always required. If there is doubt on fairness on any election, no matter how small the doubt, it should be taken serious, and even though everyone can keep going on about past elections, i would be more interested in future elections. As any nerd knows, computers can be hacked, so if u want a secure system, avoid anything that can be compromised. I find this solution: touch screen to help the blind a bit odd btw, cause, as far as i know, a basic touch screen, displays things, not press relief in to them.