Propriety or censorship
A reoccurring theme I have noticed in all the recent presentations has been limitations on what can or cannot be said in broadcast or printed etc, censorship. I was thinking about the right to freedom of speech we have in America and how that affected the way our nations has developed. It is proclaimed in the First amendment to our own Bill of Rights. But is also recognized in the Universal declaration of human rights, as well as in the International human rights law. Is it that remarkable? Is it that powerful? What would America look like if it were not for out ability to speak freely? Assuming that we are indeed able to speak freely, a point questioned at times, what are the effects of this proclaimed and protect right?
In North Korea there exists a very different environment, one of complete control. As was expressed in the lecture given on the country this control comes in many forms. The use of propaganda for support of the government, control over the dispersal & use of commutation equipment and a system of informants are a few examples. These work together to create an environment that results in forcing the inhabitants there of to trust the government and only the government.
In Russia while there are not laws specifically barring what is said, there is a great expectation of self-censorship and dire consequences for those who don’t. Consequences, which also are not written in the law, but happen anyway. It is not allowed to speak negatively against the government officials or the decisions they make. There is a façade of free and open communication sustained by the more than 400 daily newspapers, millions of Internet users and the various television and radio stations. When in reality, the Internet the people use is not only controlled in regard to content but also monitored, The broadcast stations are owned and run through what is essentially cronyism and the only the print publications and TV stations approved by the government are actually available to the masses.
But what is so bad about not bashing the ruling party? Perhaps a little more respect in the swearing out of complaints and concerns would be a good idea? Does freedom of speech have to be interpreted so broadly as is seems to be for the majority of American? There appears to be a thought among the people that freedom of speech equals saying whatever when ever. Personally, I think America would do with a little self-censorship, especially in this day and age. The vast majority of Americans have at their disposal, quick and simple access to the Internet. Where one can, not only find a wealth of information on multitudinous topics but it is also where people can and do create and post essentially anything they wish, under the guise of the common misconception of freedom of speech. Thus degrading its actual value. It seems that perhaps a functional value of freedom of speech is quelling the masses. Allowing them to speak their piece whether for not anything will ever come of it; because it is impossible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.
