Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

[Gerald]

Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.

In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called Innocence of Muslims appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.

It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a zombie Muhammed. Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures which is what you did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-world-uses-to-limit-free-speech/2012/10/12/e0573bd4-116d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_story.html

Note: October 12 2012

[Hottentot]

The article does have a point to a certain degree. There sure are people who would be more than happy to censor away everything that doesn't fit their view of the world. Whether they sit in the governments and are able to make such decisions is another question.

On the other hand there are people to whom "freedom of speech" is just yet another magic phrase that makes whatever boogeyman is living under their bed go away when they shut off the lights. The kind of people that intentionally go insulting that 200kg boxing champion and then cry "I haf feedom of fpeef" after he makes them swallow half of their teeth.

Personally I'd say that you are free to express whatever kind of opinion you want, but should also accept that there might be consequences for it. As long as it works that way, everything is fine by me. When, on the other hand, expression of opinions and thoughts will be censored by government or a similar instance before they are even published, I'd be far more worried.

[Sailor Steve]

As you say, all freedoms are to be accepted as limited by human interaction. I have the inherent right to do anything I want, but I don't have any right to deny those same rights to others. Yes, if you know what's good for you, you will limit your use of freedoms in a judicious way.

The written guarantees are are only meant to protect us from infringements by the government, since government is an organization and organizations by nature have no rights.

[edit] I've just read the entire article, and to me most of it is a crock. On the one hand people can say what they want. On the other, this is an attempt to control what gets printed in private publications. It remindes me of the Sedition Act of 1798. Criticizing the president was made illegal. Vice president Jefferson convinced several of his friends to test it through their newspapers, and test it they did. And they went to jail, and stayed there until Jefferson won the election of 1800 and let the Act expire.

Yes, freedom of expression has been misused (to use the Egyptian U.N. ambassador's words). Should it be made illegal? Absolutely not.

[Hottentot]

As a humorous side note, I read this a good while ago from a non-academic book on Soviet Estonia, written as a sort of a memoir by a guy who lived in there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_Vahtre). Six rules for not getting into trouble (out of my memory, so results may vary):

1: Don't think.
2: If you think, don't think out loud.
3: If you think out loud, don't write.
4: If you write, don't publish.
5: If you publish, don't publish with your own name.
6: If you publish with your own name, don't be surprised.

Edit: Ah, I see the book has been translated to English as well. If you're interested, it's called Empire of the absurd: a brief history of the absurdities of the Soviet Union. Definitely one of the most hilarious books I have ever read, not the least because of the writer's dry sense of humor. Highly recommended. :up:

[Cybermat47]

Well this sucks.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well this sucks.

Good post.

[TLAM Strike]

If person Y says person X's beliefs are violent in nature, and person X responds to such a statement with violence, then person Y spoke the truth.

How quickly we forget John Zenger. :salute:

[u crank]

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
- Harry S. Truman

I believe in censorship. I made a fortune out of it.
- Mae West

[Hottentot]

Good post.

No.

[Takeda Shingen]

No.

I disagree; it really brought a lot to the table. Made me sit down and think for awhile.

[Hottentot]

I disagree; it really brought a lot to the table. Made me sit down and think for awhile.

Disagree 100 %.

[Cybermat47]

Disagree 100 %.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

[Hottentot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Really?

[em2nought]

Where do I get a zombie Muhammed costume? :D

[Tribesman]

Where do I get a zombie Muhammed costume?
Ask at the store for a name tag.

[JU_88]

Well this sucks.

Dont take this the wrong way, but are you by any chance under the impression that you will win a luxury cruise when your post count reaches a certain number? :O:
You do post an awful lot of one to three word replies recently :hmmm:
I think what Tak was hinting at, is that we'd sure apprieciate it if you could take the time to give us a couple of sentences at least - so we got something to work with, e.g 'why do you think it sucks?'
Quality over quantity and all that, just a suggestion thats all ;)

[mookiemookie]

Ask at the store for a name tag.

I think you'd need one, or else people would mistake you for a zombie Osama bin Laden. That's far less offensive if that's your goal.

[Skybird]

There also is a non-formal way of censoring free speech, that is the anonymous pressure deriving from socially accepted views, and the Flak you take when you violate this mainstream consensus on what "reasonable" opinion is. Violate it, and you soon get declared an outcast, become victim of witch hunts, become demonised, media will react to you, you even get claimed to be ill in true psychological-medical meaning. "Political correctness" is about this mechanism and uses it as well as it gets used by it, but also Greenish missionising, social engineering projects, gender-engineering.

The understanding of what freedom is, always differs on basis of cultural and religious definitions people got influenced by. This is why it is an illusion to think that all cultures and religions could ever peacefully live together in a multi-cultural society - there will always be conflict coming from this, attack and self-defense. That's why I think that we would be better off if we learn to give up this dangerous illusion and keep certain groups separate, and us, as a society, staying away from certain others, and not trying to melt both. Mind you - I'm talking about culture and ideology, not about race and ethnicity.

Me personally always have been alarmed by groups, collectives and crowds. Stupidity to me is - in the main - a sociological problem, no psychological one on the individual level. The greater the crowd you deal with, the greater the anonymous pressure to streamline your opinion according to the "consensus", the greater the general stupidity, and the more power their paroles and phrases and preset schemes gain over your thinking. - Stay independent in your thinking, insist on forming your views by yourself, and from the outside - you have a wider perspective from there, and a better view. But for doing so, you have to accept a good amount of self-isolation and loneliness. Friends you will not win too many by living like this. But everything comes at a cost, and this still is the better life. It's more adult, more ripe.

What raises some questions on whether those individuals you sometimes stumble over and who claim to be your friends cause they agree with you and you with them, really are "friends". I can only tell about myself: when strangers tell me several times they feel somewhat linked to me and agree with me and what a great company we make, I feel my ears laying back and my neck's fur rising all by itself.

[mookiemookie]

There also is a non-formal way of censoring free speech, that is the anonymous pressure deriving from socially accepted views, and the Flak you take when you violate this mainstream consensus on what "reasonable" opinion is. Violate it, and you soon get declared an outcast, become victim of witch hunts, become demonised, media will react to you, you even get claimed to be ill in true psychological-medical meaning. "Political correctness" is about this mechanism and uses it as well as it gets used by it, but also Greenish missionising, social engineering projects, gender-engineering.

That's not censorship. That's called "not being an obnoxious jerk."

Me personally always have been alarmed by groups, collectives and crowds. Stupidity to me is - in the main - a sociological problem, no psychological one on the individual level. The greater the crowd you deal with, the greater the anonymous pressure to streamline your opinion according to the "consensus", the greater the general stupidity, and the more power their paroles and phrases and preset schemes gain over your thinking. - Stay independent in your thinking, insist on forming your views by yourself, and from the outside - you have a wider perspective from there, and a better view. But for doing so, you have to accept a good amount of self-isolation and loneliness. Friends you will not win too many by living like this. But everything comes at a cost, and this still is the better life. It's more adult, more ripe. Is it lonely up in your ivory tower?

Seriously though, it may not have been your intention to come across as condescending and sanctimonious, but that's certainly what it sounded like.

[Dowly]

Dont take this the wrong way, but are you by any chance under the impression that you will win a luxury cruise when your post count reaches a certain number? :O:
You do post an awful lot of one to three word replies recently :hmmm:
I think what Tak was hinting at, is that we'd sure apprieciate it if you could take the time to give us a couple of sentences at least - so we got something to work with, e.g 'why do you think it sucks?'
Quality over quantity and all that, just a suggestion thats all ;)

Placing people who spam on your ignore list helps a lot. :D

[JU_88]

There also is a non-formal way of censoring free speech, that is the anonymous pressure deriving from socially accepted views, and the Flak you take when you violate this mainstream consensus on what "reasonable" opinion is. Violate it, and you soon get declared an outcast, become victim of witch hunts, become demonised, media will react to you, you even get claimed to be ill in true psychological-medical meaning. "Political correctness" is about this mechanism and uses it as well as it gets used by it, but also Greenish missionising, social engineering projects, gender-engineering.

Sure, but thats nothing new is it?, since the very begining of the 'free society' you have only ever had as much freedom of expression as society allows. You are asking for is society that doesnt get offended by anything that is merely spoken. Not gonna happen, ever.
Yes, sometimes society gets its wrong, but overall we are still freer now than at any other point in our history.
Im guessing its more of a problem that is personal to you, as some of your own views are not widely tollerated (when they were once upon a time, thus giving you the illusion that free speech is becoming more censored.)

[Skybird]

You are asking for is society that doesn't get offended by anything.
Its not about society getting offended yes or no, but ideological drive abusing this way of pressurizing to get its way. Being offended may be opportunistically claimed as an instrumental means, but is not at the real core. The real core is about engineering society according to ideological motivations, whether they be gender-related, environment-related, religion-related, material wealth related, glorifying work-related, or whatever.

Being offended is an instrumentalization to get your will: "you offended me, what you say is offensive. Shut up, fall back, never dare to say again, give me what I want!". Like is claiming own victimhood eternally: "I am victim, we are victims of this and that, so feel bad and guilty yourself, feel morally obligated, don't dare to object and leave us our will, and compensate us to ease your moral subconsciousness!" - Many do like this, but especially Jewish and Muhammeddan lobby groups, gender and equality engineers, left-leaning social equalizers, and Green technocrats are masters of these arts.

[Nippelspanner]

If person Y says person X's beliefs are violent in nature, and person X responds to such a statement with violence, then person Y spoke the truth.

How quickly we forget John Zenger. :salute:

Post of the year? :hmmm:

:up:

[JU_88]

Being offended is an instrumentalization to get your will: "you offended me, what you say is offensive. Shut up, fall back, never dare to say again, give me what I want!". Like is claiming own victimhood eternally: "I am victim, we are victims of this and that, so feel bad and guilty yourself, feel morally obligated, don't dare to object and leave us our will, and compensate us to ease your moral subconsciousness!" - Many do like this, but especially Jewish and Muhammeddan lobby groups, gender and equality engineers, left-leaning social equalizers, and Green technocrats are masters of these arts.

I apprieciate that there is some truth in that, and political correctness is sometimes exploited by those it seeks to protect. But one could also argue that you are in similar territory below.

...and the Flak you take when you violate this mainstream consensus on what "reasonable" opinion is. Violate it, and you soon get declared an outcast, become victim of witch hunts, become demonised, media will react to you,.....

Do you see a slight contradiction between the two?
You are hating on those who play the the victimization card while you are doing it yourself.

[Hottentot]

since the very begining of the 'free society' you have only ever had as much freedom of expression as society allows. You are asking for is society that doesnt get offended by anything that is merely spoken. Not gonna happen, ever.

And this point brings us to the idea that we are in fact these days living in a reality called "mass society" (have been for decades, as a matter of fact.) The one where "the society" tells individuals what is acceptable thinking and what is not. As the society grows, people can't all know each other personally. Instead the media among other things (one other being history) creates them the "common reality" so to speak. But in fact it doesn't necessary have anything to do with reality or the society.

As an exaggerated example the media could create a reality where football was only played by socially incompetent and politically suspicious people. History could create an image where the development of mankind is, in fact, only leaps towards the great ideal of communism. Oh wait, they tried that already. Scrap the "could" there.

And in a mass society a good amount of people would buy that if repeated enough, because it's easier to accept a ready view of the world that is supposedly shared by everyone else, than to create one yourself. People are, for example, eager to talk about what is happening in foreign countries like they were speaking of facts, but won't for a moment stop to think where they are getting their information from. More often than not it's the media, because it can easily be the only source.

I'm not blaming media or any other method of mass communication for doing exactly what it's supposed to do. We need some method in today's information flood to make it into a neat package that we can understand. But at the same time I wish people would also be more critical and follow more than their own area's or country's media. Not to mention that in the case of politics among many others the information is freely available. It pays to read that 100 page campaign document instead of just reading the two paragraphs that the newspaper has decided to highlight.

[mookiemookie]

But why shouldn't a society have values? That seems to be the gist of some of the argument here. Going back to caveman days, human societies have had themes, values, traits and ideas that they hold up as good and right - a unifying ideal that makes a society, a society. Those that speak out against these traits are likely to be ostracized and shamed for going against the societal ideal. This is nothing new.

I just see it as whining when people try to play the victim card when they spout some fringe idea, like their right to free speech is supposed to come with the right to have everyone accept their belief as valid. You have the right to say that (insert racial/political/religious group here) is the source of all of our ills in the world, but everyone else has the right to call you a bigot and mock your idea.

[Hottentot]

But why shouldn't a society have values? That seems to be the gist of some of the argument here. Going back to caveman days, human societies have had themes, values, traits and ideas that they hold up as good and right - a unifying ideal that makes a society, a society.

In case you were referring to my post above, I never said it shouldn't. It's the nature of societies, as you say. But whereas the cavemen were, and for the majority of our past the mankind has been, small groups where people knew each other and could solve these issues face to face, these days we are masses and it's the nature of modern society that the masses are controlled. That's maybe not the best choice of word since it sounds very totalitarian, but in principle a mass society relies on that. A society (in large scale, such as a country) must still have values, but the values are created by new means.

Small communities may not have such problems, but take any larger city and it starts to show. People living in block of flats hardly even know their neighbors, let alone the ones living in the block on the opposite side of the street. The concerns for the city are voiced on the pages of the local newspaper and not in large gatherings on a marketplace. There is something between the people.

That's all fine and good as long as the methods of mass control stay in proper hands. But there have been and are plenty of societies where this is not the case.


I just see it as whining when people try to play the victim card when they spout some fringe idea, like their right to free speech is supposed to come with the right to have everyone accept their belief as valid. You have the right to say that (insert racial/political/religious group here) is the source of all of our ills in the world, but everyone else has the right to call you a bigot and mock your idea.Which is exactly what I was after in my first post in this thread. :yep:

[MH]

Being offended is an instrumentalization to get your will: "you offended me, what you say is offensive. Shut up, fall back, never dare to say again, give me what I want!". Like is claiming own victimhood eternally: "I am victim, we are victims of this and that, so feel bad and guilty yourself, feel morally obligated, don't dare to object and leave us our will, and compensate us to ease your moral subconsciousness!" - Many do like this, but especially Jewish and Muhammeddan lobby groups, gender and equality engineers, left-leaning social equalizers, and Green technocrats are masters of these arts.

not bad playing a victim.

[mapuc]

I have seen Muslims online, make both fun and belittle the Jews and Christians.

So if they want a ban on "mockery of religion" then it should work both ways.

As I see it and understand it, then it's only their religion. that must be protected

[tater]

Religion is a set of ideas like any other, and deserves no more or less respect than any other set of ideas.

Free societies place a high value on freedom of expression. The test for such freedom is how it treats unpopular expression. IMO laws regarding expression can't get much better than "your_government_body_here shall make no law (abridging freedom of speech)."

[Penguin]

There is no right to be not-offended. The contrary is true: only friction between opinions and dialogue between different poitions can create a productive dialogue.

A great article, from a more European pov is this here: Crimethink - the Legacy of Totalitarianism (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/5720)
Make also sure to read the excellent interview with Kenan Malik and the report about the link between violence and speech by the US Holocaust Museum. Both are linked in the article.




Small communities may not have such problems, but take any larger city and it starts to show. People living in block of flats hardly even know their neighbors, let alone the ones living in the block on the opposite side of the street. The concerns for the city are voiced on the pages of the local newspaper and not in large gatherings on a marketplace. There is something between the people.

That's all fine and good as long as the methods of mass control stay in proper hands. But there have been and are plenty of societies where this is not the case.


I am not 100% sure what you mean by those mass control instruments. For example the media, is a two-sided sword: it may parrot the opinions of the "masses", but it certainly also creates opinions. Both is legitimate.

I have my problems with giving censorship instruments to the state, the potential for abuse is too big.

This goes especially for a globalized world, where an "offense" is broadcast within seconds around the earth. You can't cater to everyone, you will always find someone who is offended. Global values are as utopian as having the same opinions in a 500 person village. They may have the same opinion when it goes to creating a landfill in the village center, but may will fight each other with claws when the question arises whether to paint the town square red or blue.

[Hottentot]

I am not 100% sure what you mean by those mass control instruments. For example the media, is a two-sided sword: it may parrot the opinions of the "masses", but it certainly also creates opinions. Both is legitimate.

I'd say that depends on the issues. If we are talking about relatively simple things, then yes, the individuals of the mass most likely agree with each other and the media (or other methods) parrot it. "Murder is wrong" is something that most people in a society would agree, it doesn't take a media to tell them that.

On the other hand, the media is a great opinion former when talking about more everyday matters such as politics. Take the True Finns, for example, because we have chatted about them for a while in the past. The media here notices mostly the stupid things they do and harp on that: "representative X said that" and then "representative Y said that". Heck, it's not always even a representative: a neverheard representative's assistent will do just as well, or some unknown town politician.

These things happen, yes. And you know that my opinion of that party is not very admiring. But nevertheless I can't help noticing that the media hardly reports of any initiatives they do or other such things. They are, intentionally or not, making the True Finns look like a party of fools. And there are people who will believe that, because it's "in": you don't want to look like a fool saying they are not a party of fools, do you? I mean, your neighbor whom you don't know surely must also think they are fools. "Everyone" thinks so. No, better not ask them personally about it, otherwise you might also look like a fool.

As another current example from Finland, we have a little crisis with Russia currently. Our childcare supposedly took bunch of kids from their Russian parents into custody because of domestic abuse. To vast majority of people who either don't speak Russian or follow the Russian media, our Finnish media is the only source to follow the development of the situation. And it shows, both in the news articles as well as in the attitudes and comments of the people.

The media is not lying. That would be stupid. They are simply exaggerating, quoting selectively and generally speaking showing only one side of the coin. For what it's worth, so is the Russian media. Panic, scandal and emotions tend to sell better and they both know that. Too bad that those three also are then reflected to people's opinions as well.

[Skybird]

There is no right to be not-offended. The contrary is true: only friction between opinions and dialogue between different poitions can create a productive dialogue.

A great article, from a more European pov is this here: Crimethink - the Legacy of Totalitarianism (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/5720)
Make also sure to read the excellent interview with Kenan Malik and the report about the link between violence and speech by the US Holocaust Museum. Both are linked in the article.



Good find! :up: And a frightening read.

[Penguin]

I'd say that depends on the issues. If we are talking about relatively simple things, then yes, the individuals of the mass most likely agree with each other and the media (or other methods) parrot it. "Murder is wrong" is something that most people in a society would agree, it doesn't take a media to tell them that.


Great example, as it shows how complicated issues can be that may look shallow on the surface. In this case it would also depend how you ask the question: "Is it ok to murder another human?" - "Are you pro capital punishment?" - "Should we execute pedophiles?" All three would turn out to have very different results. The latter is an example, how the media did two things in recent years by putting child abuse into the focus. On the one hand it raised awareness for this issue, what is a good thing. On the other hand it gave the police and child protection services do not confirm.



On the other hand, the media is a great opinion former when talking about more everyday matters such as politics. Take the True Finns, for example, because we have chatted about them for a while in the past. The media here notices mostly the stupid things they do and harp on that: "representative X said that" and then "representative Y said that". Heck, it's not always even a representative: a neverheard representative's assistent will do just as well, or some unknown town politician.

These things happen, yes. And you know that my opinion of that party is not very admiring. But nevertheless I can't help noticing that the media hardly reports of any initiatives they do or other such things. They are, intentionally or not, making the True Finns look like a party of fools. And there are people who will believe that, because it's "in": you don't want to look like a fool saying they are not a party of fools, do you? I mean, your neighbor whom you don't know surely must also think they are fools. "Everyone" thinks so. No, better not ask them personally about it, otherwise you might also look like a fool.


It is funny, as we have a similar reporting about the True Finns in Germany. A party of semi-retarted foul-mouthed alcoholics. The big point is that we had many reports about the TFs, but only few reports about the issues they raise, for example reports about not so well off quarters in your cities. This makes it even more stupid, as us who don't live there don't have the impressions about your daily life like you guys have. Hell, Finland gets rarely mentioned at all. We get some naked numbers: "Oh, the Finns only have 2.5 immigrants," which says indirectly "so this can't be a problem", but those are numbers who say crap if there are issues. If one would see this very bleak, you could call it "censorship by not-mentioning"



As another current example from Finland, we have a little crisis with Russia currently. Our childcare supposedly took bunch of kids from their Russian parents into custody because of domestic abuse. To vast majority of people who either don't speak Russian or follow the Russian media, our Finnish media is the only source to follow the development of the situation. And it shows, both in the news articles as well as in the attitudes and comments of the people.

The media is not lying. That would be stupid. They are simply exaggerating, quoting selectively and generally speaking showing only one side of the coin. For what it's worth, so is the Russian media. Panic, scandal and emotions tend to sell better and they both know that. Too bad that those three also are then reflected to people's opinions as well.

As we all have limited resources, we are dependent on 3rd parties who do the translation - not only in translating the language, but also in translating cultural issues. We could call it how we wish the media should work - a transformator between events and the recipient. (Also how you historians should work ;))
On the other hand, there is also the very human issue of categorizing the world into pieces that are understandable, often by judgement, mostly by leaving things out to fit into the view of a simple world.
This is for example why the most read German paper is the Bild, which usually doesn't use more than 3 words in their headline with articles no longer than some sentences, but very judgemental. Serving little tidbits of information. If people wouldn't want this, it wouldn't been the most sold "paper" here.


(if this post doesn't make much sense, it's because I'm on the job, typing one or two sentences at a time before rushing back into the salt mines :))

[Skybird]

Great example, as it shows how complicated issues can be that may look shallow on the surface. In this case it would also depend how you ask the question: "Is it ok to murder another human?" - "Are you pro capital punishment?" - "Should we execute pedophiles?" All three would turn out to have very different results. The latter is an example, how the media did two things in recent years by putting child abuse into the focus. On the one hand it raised awareness for this issue, what is a good thing. On the other hand it gave the police and child protection services do not confirm.


More profound basis to complicate things: is it murder to kill somebody for the right reason? - Where this is relevant today? For example freedom of expression. Free speech versus free speech demanded to accept self-censorship on behalf of religious animosities, namely Islam. Free speech in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is something totally different than free speech as understood in Western tradition and the UN declaration of human rights. Or - can't help it, it is Islam again, but so be it - the non-acceptance of killing innocents. What if non-innocent is defined as heretic, non-believer? You then end up with claiming that your ideology claims the killing of innocents is not accepted in your ideology - but you end up hacking away at innocent people who just happens to not believe like you demand them to believe. Or one claims to fight only in "self-defense". But when the mere non-believing of the other is defined as "aggression", "attack", "defense", your self-defense becomes a pointless claim, and an excuse for your own aggression.

Finally, the case of preemptive action. Are you allowed to kill the other because you know he wants to pull the trigger once he has finished trimming the barrel of his cannon on your position? Or do you need to wait with your reaction until he pulled the trigger and you surely suffer hit and death yourself? This is open for debate in every individual case, and so indeed happens in every-day political fighting for "Deutungshoheit" over actual issues, from environment policies to Iran.

This is for example why the most read German paper is the Bild, which usually doesn't use more than 3 words in their headline with articles no longer than some sentences, but very judgemental. Serving little tidbits of information. If people wouldn't want this, it wouldn't been the most sold "paper" here.
Papers like this do not report about politics, but try to make politics. They do not supply information to give people the opportunity to form opinions, but they supply the opinions they want people to have - again in order to directly influence politics. I see such papers as not newspapers able to serve as a pillar of democracy, the often quoted "fourth power", but as lobbyistic propaganda pamphlets. I therefore will both two separate sets of freedoms which are not identical. The trick is how to separate both, how to define the thin red line between the,m , and how to prevent the shifting and manipulation of that line in order to illegally manipulate media on either side of it, may it be to limit the reporting of the one, may it be to make the other pushing harder by giving it more space.

[Hottentot]

Great example, as it shows how complicated issues can be that may look shallow on the surface. In this case it would also depend how you ask the question: "Is it ok to murder another human?" - "Are you pro capital punishment?" - "Should we execute pedophiles?" All three would turn out to have very different results.True. I intentionally tried to be careful with the wording there: I initially wrote "killing is wrong", but then realized that you could kill in a war, in self defence and so on and so changed it to "murder" instead. And your reply demonstrates that even then I didn't think of all the angles. I was thinking murder as a crime, a premeditated attempt to kill someone, but didn't remember that some would call death sentence a murder as well. One word, all the meanings. :)


It is funny, as we have a similar reporting about the True Finns in Germany. A party of semi-retarted foul-mouthed alcoholics. The big point is that we had many reports about the TFs, but only few reports about the issues they raise, for example reports about not so well off quarters in your cities. This makes it even more stupid, as us who don't live there don't have the impressions about your daily life like you guys have.Your media most likely gets its information from our media, and likewise ours gets information from yours. And this is exactly why the internet and forums like Subsim are great. If I read about an issue in a foreign country, I can directly ask from people living in that country or the event's immediate area how it's like to them. Sure, I'll still get just bunch of opinions, just like I'm now giving my own, but when combined with the other information available, it creates something bigger from the small pieces.


We get some naked numbers: "Oh, the Finns only have 2.5 immigrants," which says indirectly "so this can't be a problem", but those are numbers who say crap if there are issues. Which is also a common problem. It's impossible to understand the impacts of such things when they are just numbers. But numbers are easy to understand and easy to talk about. And easy to take distance from. Newspaper: "3,000 people died". OK. Next the comics...

Whereas show me how much land is needed to bury those 3,000 and it becomes a little different.


As we all have limited resources, we are dependent on 3rd parties who do the translation - not only in translating the language, but also in translating cultural issues. [snip] On the other hand, there is also the very human issue of categorizing the world into pieces that are understandable, often by judgement, mostly by leaving things out to fit into the view of a simple world. Aye, and that's one sign of the modern era: we not only are able to, but are expected to know and have opinions on stuff that doesn't concern us directly. Back in the old days we hardly even knew what was happening in the village next to ours. These days we follow who is going to be the president of a foreign country. Of course there needs to be something that cuts us neat information blocks of all this, so that we can then discuss it together, argue about it and feel good. But we still know preciously little about it based on only that: instead we compete on who knows the most about the information that has already been filtered multiple times before it reaches us. The "common reality" is created before we can influence it.


We could call it how we wish the media should work - a transformator between events and the recipient. (Also how you historians should work) We do. It's one of the most fundamental lessons a history major learns during his/her education. I just wish that everyone else knew it too. Would make discussing history and the role of historians easier if they taught in the school's history classes what "a paradigm" is.


Hee, that's two walls of text for you in row. High five, Skybird. :up:

[Gerald]

Sky's signature "walls of text",does not matter where the text is readable :arrgh!:

[Cybermat47]

Dont take this the wrong way, but are you by any chance under the impression that you will win a luxury cruise when your post count reaches a certain number? :O:
You do post an awful lot of one to three word replies recently :hmmm:
I think what Tak was hinting at, is that we'd sure apprieciate it if you could take the time to give us a couple of sentences at least - so we got something to work with, e.g 'why do you think it sucks?'
Quality over quantity and all that, just a suggestion thats all ;)

Look above my post.