Freedom of the Press
I have been looking at websites that are pro and anti ‘freedom of the press’. The first website that I have chosen has a lot of useful information about people’s right to freedom of the press. I found it very interesting in how it says about the history of punishment for someone saying or writing something considered blasphemous and offensive. As it had an example of a newspaper publisher called Matthew Lyons who was criticised for his “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp” and consequently given a $1000 fee. Towards the end of the article, it shows how this liberty of freedom of press has evolved with the introduction of sky digital TV and with the transformation of technology in how its monitoring and regulations have changed over the years.
I found this article an easy read, although it was rather long and thought it was very interesting in how the development of the internet means that now ALMOST anyone can say anything with someone being able to listen to your opinion from the other side of the world.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/press.htm
The second article I found was very interesting, as I could not find a website that was particularly anti freedom of the press, I found this one that showed how not everyone in the world can be able to read and view particular comments on the web that are controversial or goes against their religious or political beliefs. This was quite shocking for me to read as I had no idea that the government in Saudi Arabia and Egypt could ban websites for their country to not see!
http://www.radiomundoreal.fm/rmr/?q=en/node/8783
My opinion on freedom of press is for it. I used to do media studies and got told off for writing something a little “on the edge” as my teacher called it, and I think its ridiculous that certain people are restricted to write things or say things and even to the extend not be able to view such articles that are controversial!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am for freedom of press, however i feel that some limitations need to be put in place for extreme circumstances. For example a few years ago when a Danish (i think) news paper printed a cartoon of Islamic prophet Muhammad in various different situations (one of which depicted a bomb in his turbin) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png Here is a link to the cartoons. These pictures led to many riots and resulted in people getting injured. I feel that these images should never have been alowed to be published in a newspaper. The press are very influencial now days in what people think and do, it is for these reasons that i feel there needs to be limitations on what the press are allowed to report on.
The second web site was very interesting. I too was quite shocked that these countries are ablt to block what people see. In some circumstances i can see why it is necessary to block certain web sites, e.g. bomb making web sites etc etc. However it is not justifiable to block web sites that deal with issues such as "women’s rights, secularisation, free press and economic inequality."
The first website regarding the freedom of press was very thorough. I liked the quote from Walter Lippman, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society" I find it interesting that he is a writer and therefore probably cherishes this right. I also liked the little illustration in the corner! Freedom of press and freedom of speech are very similar but I suppose it was necesary to define the two separately.
I have heard of this type of restrictions to press and speech in other countries. To me, is sad when people are not free to say what they truely believe or are not allowed to educate themselves with information they see fit. According to this article, many countries block such websites that may educate their people about liberties and possibly encourage such things as feminism and equality. This article was very informative and it makes me appreciate the rights I have as an American.
The first website I found very informative. Earlier on in the article, I found it interesting how that the government saw it as essential to convict those who criticize them through the press. In my opinion, I believe that by serving such heavy consequences for these actions, it will encourage more and more people to stand up to the government, providing them with greater opposition. Also by allowing people to add their opinions, this could give some kind of advice to the running government on how they could improve their leadership and run the country.
The second article proves that the whole freedom of speech concept is yet to reach many areas of the world. Governments and politicians of these countries, I believe, are still controlling things in an extremely old fashioned way. The whole concept of blocking websites, and not even allowing women to use the Internet without supervision proves that these countries are moving backwards and that their world social reputation is never likely to improve.
My opinion on freedom of the press is near exact to that of freedom of speech. People’s opinions I believe should be allowed to be put across for the public to see, but only if they do not include extremist views which criticize a specific group of peoples, condemning them in ways which would be seen as profound.
Post a Comment