The media spreads mass lies, inciting violence against the innocent and abstinence for the guilty.
It must be destroyed.
...says the raging psycho-path who protests outside my door.
I think that some media could be blocked if it is deemed dangerous, or if it would incite panic, otherwise it would (in the US) be a breach of First Amendment rights, so...
I think that some media could be blocked if it is deemed dangerous
I agree. We shouldn't let the news say "A small team of US Army Rangers will be traveling to a known AlQueda stronghold tonight at these coordinates (inserts coordinates)" because that would be illogical. The problem is who gets to decide what's dangerous and why it's blocked. The government's like Websense when it comes to their failures. If anything's even remotely related to them doing something questionable or corrupt, they block it from the public. That creates distrust.
or if it would incite panic
The thing I don't like about that rule is when they know something's going to happen, they don't say anything even if a lot of problems could have been avoided simply by telling people to prepare themselves. Like if a meteor the size of Rhode Island was going to land in the middle of the Pacific (not nationwide-panic serious, but still something), they should inform the people in Hawaii to get out of there to minimize risk, even if they cover it up by saying a few days early that a small seaquake is expected or something. They should be more worried about saving lives than keeping shut about it simply to avoid people worrying. The people will be much more hopeless when they're injured and burying the dead. The government focuses on being there to clean up the aftermath instead of preventing/avoiding the mess in the first place.
...says the raging psycho-path who protests outside my door.
A psycho-path? Gotta watch out for those. Just be walking down one, and it suddenly turns green and the daisies into roses.
Believe me, people with that opinion don't protest. They blow things up.
I find the general news media to be the most evil thing to come out of this information age of ours. Not a word they speak can be trusted, not a one. If they have the audacity to spout one lie of great importance, how can they be trusted with little things?
Liberty of expression is 'good'. But complete and total liberty of expression is an utopia. What about neo-nazis? Should they have the right to express their convictions?
The media? Information should be a right of everyone, and the media should know that not telling something can have the same effect as telling something wrong; isn't telling something wrong pretty bad for a media?
I feel that in this thread, with liberty of expression and media blockage, two things that are only partially related have been put together; am I wrong?
Well, I like the idea of free press and everything, but the news is so biased and commercialized I don't trust anythign it says. Obviously everyone is biased in someways, but some of the stories on the news are just made to get people mad and the other half are twisted around to also get you angry. Although I guess there must be a few good news stations out there. Sure beats government propaganda though.
I think liberty of expression is not truly a right but a privilege that some people abuse. But as far as media blockage we should know what is going on but they can change the news however they want( they being the government/media news networks). Besides if it's important then the government will just order the information to be changed to avoid panic or leaking information.
The media spreads mass lies, inciting violence against the innocent and abstinence for the guilty.
Are you completely sure about that? I live in Ecuador and the president always gets trouble with the newspapers owners they cant talk about him... its like a blockage i believe
The thing I don't like about that rule is when they know something's going to happen, they don't say anything even if a lot of problems could have been avoided simply by telling people to prepare themselves. Like if a meteor the size of Rhode Island was going to land in the middle of the Pacific (not nationwide-panic serious, but still something), they should inform the people in Hawaii to get out of there to minimize risk, even if they cover it up by saying a few days early that a small seaquake is expected or something. They should be more worried about saving lives than keeping shut about it simply to avoid people worrying. The people will be much more hopeless when they're injured and burying the dead. The government focuses on being there to clean up the aftermath instead of preventing/avoiding the mess in the first place.
First, don't want to be too technical, but earthquakes are unpredictable, so...
Anyways, the "inciting panic" part is also unprotected speech under the First Amendment. It would be akin to saying "Fire!" in a crowded theater just for kicks and giggles. Also, if the news would render the government incapable of performing its duties (like in the movie 2012), then the information could be withheld.
I live in Ecuador and the president always gets trouble with the newspapers owners they cant talk about him... its like a blockage i believe
so what the president is making is wrong? then why do you think that the people in here doesnt do anything?
Before I comment, I want to tell you I have nothing against the Ecuadorian people.
You guys unfortunately have very few basic rights that are necessary for humans like free speech and stuff. Your president is criticized for trying to set up a state-run media, sort of like what you would see in Iran. Again, no offense. If my comments make you upset, just know I wasn't trying to do that.
