5.10.2004
You may have missed the publicity thing... the NY Times jumped on the story early on when Moore first said that he was being censored. Then it came out that that had been the deal all along, that Miramax (by extension, disney) would make the film but not distribute it. It was just a publicity thing. That is why I was so disappointed. To quote Al Franken, another "Liberal Windbag" as you put it, "If you have to lie to support your position, you obviously don't believe in your position very much." Moore's film will obviously be distributed (Heck, I would distribute it myself... I think it would be a financial slam dunk), but it does cast his conclusions in a poor light.
What do you propose to eliminate "censorship"? Freedom of speech (what is actually guaranteed in the constitution, not the more vague freedom of expression) is not a freedom to say whatever you want. Libel and character assasination are criminal offenses. Not punishable by jail time (that I know of) but usually are involved in financial lawsuits. The first condition is that the statement has to be untrue and the second condition is that the person who said it (or wrote it or whatever) had to know it is untrue and generate the statement anyway. An example would be the tshirt/poster with a picture of Bush and the statement "International Terrorist" underneath it. Other examples are when tabloids publish false articles about celebrities, or when people make slanderous accusations of people for revenge or manipulation (wives in divorce cases are notorious for this). Propriety, while also vague, is another. References to sexual or excretory functions during "prime-time" when children could be watching are closely regulated and, especially recently, are actually being enforced. In the end, there has to be some kind of order to the situation and not just a free-speech free-for-all. There are enough outlets for communication in the correct format that I can't really say that there is any serious censorship at all. The internet is almost completely unregulated, and has the potential to reach the largest audience. Traditional outlets such as books and magazines are similarly open. Broadcast communication is less so because of the financial barriers to entry, but functionally, if you want to see something, there is some forum out there for seeing it. What I find the most frightening is the restriction and innacuracy of news. There is an aspect of a restriction of information, but I think the reinterpretation of information is far more damaging. How do you know what is REALLY going on? It is kind of a two edged sword. Government control is ridiculous. That brings us back to soviet-era information control. Corporate control, while less frightening on the surface, raises some serious questions if you think about it a bit. But I really see no alternative that doesn't lead back to our original situation in an "Animal Farm" type of way. The best thing I can think of is international news. I think there is less chance for overt information control. In the end, there is no even close to good alternative. You could have 100 people describe some event that they all simultaneously viewed and get 100 divergent views. I think that a person has to seriously consider the source (This makes Alex Jones a very dubious source of serious information), and the number of sources reporting the same thing. I try to restrict things to larger reporting wires (AP, Reuters, etc) or very large, hopefully only slightly-biased sources (NZ times, BBC, etc). Google news is great for this because you can read the same story from many different viewpoints and kind of interpolate what is most likely to have happened.
It is very easy to see someone oppose one of our favored sources or trusted experts and cry foul. The harder thing is to objectively look at the situation and discern first of all, if it is really happening or is a publicity manipulation, and then if it has any real effect on our actually getting the information. I think that true censorship is unheard of. Both in the sense that it is rare and in the sense that when it happens, none of us will ever find out about it.
What do you propose to eliminate "censorship"? Freedom of speech (what is actually guaranteed in the constitution, not the more vague freedom of expression) is not a freedom to say whatever you want. Libel and character assasination are criminal offenses. Not punishable by jail time (that I know of) but usually are involved in financial lawsuits. The first condition is that the statement has to be untrue and the second condition is that the person who said it (or wrote it or whatever) had to know it is untrue and generate the statement anyway. An example would be the tshirt/poster with a picture of Bush and the statement "International Terrorist" underneath it. Other examples are when tabloids publish false articles about celebrities, or when people make slanderous accusations of people for revenge or manipulation (wives in divorce cases are notorious for this). Propriety, while also vague, is another. References to sexual or excretory functions during "prime-time" when children could be watching are closely regulated and, especially recently, are actually being enforced. In the end, there has to be some kind of order to the situation and not just a free-speech free-for-all. There are enough outlets for communication in the correct format that I can't really say that there is any serious censorship at all. The internet is almost completely unregulated, and has the potential to reach the largest audience. Traditional outlets such as books and magazines are similarly open. Broadcast communication is less so because of the financial barriers to entry, but functionally, if you want to see something, there is some forum out there for seeing it. What I find the most frightening is the restriction and innacuracy of news. There is an aspect of a restriction of information, but I think the reinterpretation of information is far more damaging. How do you know what is REALLY going on? It is kind of a two edged sword. Government control is ridiculous. That brings us back to soviet-era information control. Corporate control, while less frightening on the surface, raises some serious questions if you think about it a bit. But I really see no alternative that doesn't lead back to our original situation in an "Animal Farm" type of way. The best thing I can think of is international news. I think there is less chance for overt information control. In the end, there is no even close to good alternative. You could have 100 people describe some event that they all simultaneously viewed and get 100 divergent views. I think that a person has to seriously consider the source (This makes Alex Jones a very dubious source of serious information), and the number of sources reporting the same thing. I try to restrict things to larger reporting wires (AP, Reuters, etc) or very large, hopefully only slightly-biased sources (NZ times, BBC, etc). Google news is great for this because you can read the same story from many different viewpoints and kind of interpolate what is most likely to have happened.
It is very easy to see someone oppose one of our favored sources or trusted experts and cry foul. The harder thing is to objectively look at the situation and discern first of all, if it is really happening or is a publicity manipulation, and then if it has any real effect on our actually getting the information. I think that true censorship is unheard of. Both in the sense that it is rare and in the sense that when it happens, none of us will ever find out about it.
< 12:34 >< /j >
