Freedom of the Press, Speech, and Thought, RIP

[bjre]

See how Chinese people's opinion different from government's:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...d=rss-world-cnn

[guyser]

See how Chinese people's opinion different from government's:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...d=rss-world-cnn

Too bad the Chinese people cant read it.

[bjre]

Too bad the Chinese people cant read it.

Actually, it talks a book recently published in China that Chinese people can read it.

You can read it in Chinese if you understand the language:

http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class10/200903/74127.html

[bjre]

bjre,

People can say whatever they want. They can even say that they don't believe in democracy, or free speech. Now, do we want to import people who are NOT citizens, that don't believe in democracy and free speech ? It's a tricky question.

In fact, the people of Canada could conceivably decide to surrender their freedoms under the charter of rights, under the right conditions. However. I would say that you have to live under democracy to criticize it properly, and you are ample evidence of my belief.

If Morris started writing about his desire to reduce our rights, I would give it more credence than if you did so, simply because you don't understand these freedoms.

Do you believe democracy can solve everything?

If so, why current economic crisis happened?

I think although democracy is a nice system, it can not solve all problems.

If all politicians are evil and thinks only about their own interest, the result of democracy will not better than a compromise among interesting groups, it will has nothing to do with most people's interest and nations interest.

On the other hand, in a non-democracy system, if a dictator is a kind, nice super-man, he will be able to efficiently make things much better.

So the most important thing is not democracy, it is education.

The education should do something to make students become nice and think of/care about others.

The education should make student capable to solve various difficult problems.

The kids should not be treat as green-house vegetables that CAS did.

The nation that fails educate a lot of capable people will have little chance to have a bright future.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you believe democracy can solve everything?

If so, why current economic crisis happened?

I think although democracy is a nice system, it can not solve all problems.

If all politicians are evil and thinks only about their own interest, the result of democracy will not better than a compromise among interesting groups, it will has nothing to do with most people's interest and nations interest.

On the other hand, in a non-democracy system, if a dictator is a kind, nice super-man, he will be able to efficiently make things much better.

So the most important thing is not democracy, it is education.

The education should do something to make students become nice and think of/care about others.

The education should make student capable to solve various difficult problems.

The kids should not be treat as green-house vegetables that CAS did.

The nation that fails educate a lot of capable people will have little chance to have a bright future.

bjre,

No, I don't believe it can solve everything, but it ensures that the people themselves can decide what is best. This works because politicians are not all evil, and don't think about their own interest, even in China. A benevolent dictator is often a superior system, but only while that dictator is in office. When he dies, as we have seen, his successor is usually unable to keep things going.

The most important thing is the long term pursuit of happiness of the people. I don't know why you keep tying all of this to CAS - maybe something happened in your personal life that you'd like to share with us ?

[Progressive Tory]

Religion has to be open to criticism – if it has any validity, it can handle a few questions. Let journalists write what they want about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion; people are free to write a rebuttal, to defend their perspective, and to prove the journalists wrong if possible.

Democracy means everyone is equal, and everyone has an equal right to say what they think. Even the most biased argument must be heard, if only to give the opportunity to debunk it. There’s no place for censorship in a free society.

Very well put. Most of the outcry from the Conservatives regarding freedom of speech, becomes about the persecution of Christians. This is nonsense.

They will fight to the death for the freedom to bash homosexuals and Muslims, but then on the flipside, try to censor anything that shows them in a bad light.

MPs assail CBC for 'sacrilege'

OTTAWA -- TWO Conservative Members of Parliament will seek to have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) answer to a House of Commons committee for a television program the Catholic Civil Rights League has described as blasphemous.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It can't be selective.

[Argus]

OTTAWA -- TWO Conservative Members of Parliament will seek to have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) answer to a House of Commons committee for a television program the Catholic Civil Rights League has described as blasphemous.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It can't be selective.

Add freedom of speech to the long list of topics which you like to write about without knowing much about.

The CBC is the government broadcaster. To suggest the government, or the individual MPs should not ever question whatever the CBC decides to broadcast is ludicrous. And that questioning has nothing whatsoever to do with "freedom of speech". I have freedom of speech. But if I start saying things at work my boss doesn't like I'm giong to get into trouble regardless.

In this case, the MPs seem to have a point. The CBC shows enormous consideration for the feelings of Muslims, and would shrink from depicting them in a way which would cause offense to the Muslim community. It evidently has no such concerns about offending Catholics. That's hypocritical and unacceptable.

[bjre]

It's sad that someone like you comes here from your dictatorship, and yet your mind is still back home, still in a cage. You've been taught that all those nasty things people say about China are wrong, and that cage is still wrapped around your head. You're in a free land now but you ignore all the evidence because you've been taught to distrust it all, and you never learned how to think for yourself. Nor do you seem much interested in trying. You are still a Chinese guy in a foreign land, looking around suspiciously, and looking to your "home" government for truth.

Does anyone wonder why I question the loyalties of many of our immigrants and feel they should not be allowed to vote? This guy is a perfect example.

The best teaching material is what I got after I came to Canada.

This video was on first on Internet at March 19, 2008

It tells us how west media tell lies. They always do that.

They did that for their boss. I don't know who the bosses are, they should be very powerful interest group that see the whole world (include Canada) as their interest.

They just want to take as much as possible from everywhere. They can bring any politician here down or up by the mainstream media as their weapon. The democracy is actually toy of them.

Only when people here can think with their own brain, people can realize this. And really do something for themselves. That is the importance of education.

[M.Dancer]

Actually it tells us you are still a chinese coolie.....kowtowing to your party masters and licking the spittle off their propaganda boots....party on slave dude. party on

[Oleg Bach]

The west is cowardly and weak - when they were a Christian nation they were defiant of corrupt authority - with humanist secularism we are watered down to believing all we see and hear. Those the control the media control the vote and control the nation. I once knew of a young man who was a very fine writer..a very Anglo Saxon man - very presentable - His father was a well known journalist, so publishing was a family tradition - the young man came to me one day and said he did not want to persue a career as a writer...I asked him why and he said "They will not print the turth" - that's it in a nut shell...no place on earth has free speech and any place that says they do are liars. If economy and culture are held together by deception - then why would the the powers that be allow one to dismantle their enterprise with real free speech....The best that they can to is dupe and condition young speakers and writers into buying into the illusion that supports the status quo - and suppress those that have clear minds.

[bjre]

bjre,

......

And the reason you can't do a web search for 'Tianaman 1989' in China.

......

About Tianman 1989, there is a video.

You can watch it, and think what the government will do if it happened in Canada / US / England / France or Germany.

Although you may not understand what it says, you can watch the vidio and you can understand it.

It is far more violence than Lasha(Tibet) last year.

Of cause, CIA is behind that as always.

Edited April 12, 2009 by bjre

[Michael Hardner]

bjre - is it available in China though ?

I also believe the media lies, and - more often - it makes mistakes. With multiple voices out there, though, there is a high chance that lies and misinformation will be challenged.

In China, not so. Civil unrest may be happening there, but we`ll never know until it`s too late.

[tango]

Add freedom of speech to the long list of topics which you like to write about without knowing much about.

The CBC is the government broadcaster. To suggest the government, or the individual MPs should not ever question whatever the CBC decides to broadcast is ludicrous. And that questioning has nothing whatsoever to do with "freedom of speech". I have freedom of speech. But if I start saying things at work my boss doesn't like I'm giong to get into trouble regardless.

In this case, the MPs seem to have a point. The CBC shows enormous consideration for the feelings of Muslims, and would shrink from depicting them in a way which would cause offense to the Muslim community. It evidently has no such concerns about offending Catholics. That's hypocritical and unacceptable.

Little Mosque on the Prairie is supposed to represent Muslim life accurately.

The Altar Boy Gang is supposed to satirize the Catholic church.

It isn't the same thing at all.

[Argus]

Little Mosque on the Prairie is supposed to represent Muslim life accurately.

The Altar Boy Gang is supposed to satirize the Catholic church.

It isn't the same thing at all.

No? How many times has the CBC "satirized" Muslims? What are the odds that the CBC would broadcast a program which has, as its main characters, Muslim dope dealers who drink, fornicate, and then go to mosque and piously bow to mecca?

Would the CBC satirize Sikhs? Hindus? Pretty bloody unlikely.

[Smallc]

No? How many times has the CBC "satirized" Muslims?

This Hour Has 22 Minutes has done it more than once. So did RCAF.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Smallc

[bjre]

bjre - is it available in China though ?

I also believe the media lies, and - more often - it makes mistakes. With multiple voices out there, though, there is a high chance that lies and misinformation will be challenged.

In China, not so. Civil unrest may be happening there, but we`ll never know until it`s too late.

How about the "free world"? Can they do something before it is too late? Who can prevent an error war before it launched?

And a weak challenged voice can not even be heard in the sea of the strong mainstream voice that goes into TV in every house.

see the following:

The invasion of Iraq — and how the media war was won and lost:

http://www.asiapac.org.fj/cafepacific/reso...raqwarmedia.pdf

The massive “more” of news coverage hardly equalled quality information, which was

lost in the “fog of war”7, and raised alarming questions about media credibility in a

campaign of propaganda, lies, half-truth and spin. Of course, this is nothing new; truth

has always been the first casualty of war, and author Philip Knightley8 had already

warned us about this some months before the invasion began. But according to John

Pilger:

There is something deeply corrupt consuming this craft of mine. It is not a recent

phenomenon; look back on the ‘coverage’ of the First World War by journalists who

were subsequently knighted for their services for the concealment of the truth of that

great slaughter.

What makes the difference today is the technology that produces an avalanche of

repetitive information, which in the United States has been the source of arguably

the most vociferous brainwashing in that country’s history.

A war that was hardly a war, that was so one-sided it ought to be despatched with

shame in the military annals, was reported like a Formula One race, as we watched

the home teams speed to the chequered flag in Baghdad’s Fardus Square, where a

statue of the dictator created and sustained by “us” was pulled down in a ceremony

that was as close to fakery as you could get.9

What is more, media with different voice can be labelled with "falsely report" and be menaced.

US menaces Al Jazeera over Iraq reportage

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/aljz-a27.shtml

They can also threat journalists away by shooting them:

Pressure Grows over US Killing of Journalists

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...journalists.htm

Both were in their hotels. Alongside roughly 100 other journalists from virtually every major international news outlet in the country at the time, Protsyuk and Couso were recouping in an officially recognized safe zone - the Palestine Hotel. But an American tank on the opposite bank of the Tigris River, roughly three-quarters of a mile away, fired directly at the hotel anyway. The US military stated that the incident was a regrettable though unavoidable mistake. However, with the recent release of an investigation by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists there is new evidence that the incident was in fact entirely avoidable, and a Spanish judge is being asked to file formal extradition charges against the responsible three US military officers.

BTW, for the tiananmen 89, the video had been broadcast again and again after June 4. I was a student at that time, I watched that when it first time on TV. The reason why you think it is too late is because you can not see it after it has been filtered out in the western media that in an era before youtube exist.

I believe you are very smart, but even you can not get accurate material to draw correct conclusion.

Most people have no way and no time to verify every message from the mainstream media here, they simply be manipulated just like you. That is the so called "Freedom".

Edited April 14, 2009 by bjre

[Michael Hardner]

bjre,

Your point is that freedom of media doesn't guarantee accuracy, or freedom from corruption.

I agree absolutely.

However, even in complete freedom of media, there are problems - rumours, and mistakes... superstitions are another example of "bad information" that gets repeated over and over.

To me, it's obvious that the the best solution is multiple sources, each source being responsible for the information they give. These sources should include academic perspectives, individuals, and other interested groups - even lobbyists.

[benny]

If you thought the Macleans case was a sham, just wait for this proposal to be implemented.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1275352

http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/

Given this story, and the United Nations resolution which would essentially ban criticism of religion; it's a wonder if 50 years from now we'll be looking for another Magna Carta to give us back some essential freedoms.

Needless to say, journalists don't require regulation, should be free to work without fear of being punished by a governing body, and should be allowed a degree of independence from the government. The freedom of a journalist to write what they want is more precious than the feelings of a malcontent Islamic fundamentalist.

Could you imagine if this was in place in the 1920's, we may have never known the genius of HL Mencken.

You don't seem to be interested to find where to draw the line about hate speech and defamation.

[jbg]

You don't seem to be interested to find where to draw the line about hate speech and defamation.

Given the costs of defending meritless lawsuits (read some of Warman's) or HRC procedings, those laws cast a considerable chill on the exercise of free speech rights.

[tango]

Given the costs of defending meritless lawsuits (read some of Warman's) or HRC procedings, those laws cast a considerable chill on the exercise of free speech rights.

Hate speech is in the Criminal Code, not the HRC.

[bjre]

Hate speech is in the Criminal Code, not the HRC.

Bible Banned and Labeled as "Hate Speech!"

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%...led_as_hate.htm

Edited April 14, 2009 by bjre

[bjre]

Hate speech is in the Criminal Code, not the HRC.

I just don't understand, why "hate speech" should be criminalized?

[tango]

I just don't understand, why "hate speech" should be criminalized?

It's along the same lines as, for example, conspiring to commit a crime - a speech-based offence too.

It is a crime of speech ... when persistent and intended to incite hatred against a particular group.

Ernst Zundel propagating hatred against Jews, for example.

Criminal Code, Sections 318, 319:

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/reso...l_code_hate.cfm

Edited April 14, 2009 by tango

[M.Dancer]

It's along the same lines as, for example, conspiring to commit a crime - a speech-based offence too.

It is a crime of speech ... when persistent and intended to incite hatred against a particular group.

Ernst Zundel propagating hatred against Jews in his classroom, for example.

You're thinking of the other nazi...keegstra....I don't think any parent in their right or wrong mind would let a child near Zundle ///his type like young bottoms

[benny]

Given the costs of defending meritless lawsuits (read some of Warman's) or HRC procedings, those laws cast a considerable chill on the exercise of free speech rights.

Legal costs can easily be transferred to a third party and even to the state.