freedom of the press

[vidcc]

I don't know about your Country but here there isn't that much that the Government can just censor. That which they can is normally open to a challenge in Court, in the public interest. How do you think so many damaging scandals get into the papers. If the Government could simply supress them they would.

Government is subject to the law, save in exceptional circumstances.

Anyone can try to supress things, not just Governments. Multi-nationals, or individuals can use injunctions to stop stories being published, if they think they are unfavourable to them. Or they can fight to have stories released which have been censored.

The bottom line, for me, is that I prefer the Courts to be the arbiter and not the newspapers.

I would add that owning a chain of newspapers doesn't mean the proprietor is honorable or honest. In fact in addition to profit they all, without exception, have their own political agenda.

At the moment their is no censorship of the press even though there are certain "rules", but there is a desire to by certain political groups. We have even had calls for a special government agency specifically for the purpose of censorship.

I agree (even said so in first post) that there needs to be responsibility and do not deny that the press has suspect people in its midst. I will even say that if it can be shown that a story printed caused damage that cannot be justified then there could be a case for the courts. I do not feel that the government or courts can censor prior to print. There are certain reasonable laws and rules that the media must follow but the bottom line for me is that the press should decide if a line is crossed and take the concequences.

Edit- Just out of interest and going with your point that government is elected but the press isn't. How many judges are elected in the UK?

[Agrajag]

I don't know about your Country but here there isn't that much that the Government can just censor. That which they can is normally open to a challenge in Court, in the public interest. How do you think so many damaging scandals get into the papers. If the Government could simply supress them they would.

Government is subject to the law, save in exceptional circumstances.

Anyone can try to supress things, not just Governments. Multi-nationals, or individuals can use injunctions to stop stories being published, if they think they are unfavourable to them. Or they can fight to have stories released which have been censored.

The bottom line, for me, is that I prefer the Courts to be the arbiter and not the newspapers.

I would add that owning a chain of newspapers doesn't mean the proprietor is honorable or honest. In fact in addition to profit they all, without exception, have their own political agenda.

At the moment their is no censorship of the press even though there are certain "rules", but there is a desire to by certain political groups. We have even had calls for a special government agency specifically for the purpose of censorship.

I agree (even said so in first post) that there needs to be responsibility and do not deny that the press has suspect people in its midst. I will even say that if it can be shown that a story printed caused damage that cannot be justified then there could be a case for the courts. I do not feel that the government or courts can censor prior to print. There are certain reasonable laws and rules that the media must follow but the bottom line for me is that the press should decide if a line is crossed and take the concequences.

We pretty much think the same thing actually.

I just see a place for people to go to Courts to get injunctions against a story being published. With the newspaper being in a position to fight against the injunction.

I don't think they should be able to publish whatever they want, or self regulate and take the consequences. By that time the damage could have been done.

For example, a Judge in a case may ban any reporting on it, while the case is in progress. As they may think it would lead to an unfair trial, or to vigilante action.

I also see instances where a Government may wish to supress a story, on grounds of National security, or whatever. They must have the ability to do this. That is not the same as supressing a story to suit your political ends, or to protect your members. I think that is wrong.

Bottom line, the Government must not be above the law, but they should have recourse to the Courts, in the same way that everyone else has.

[j2k4]

Chinese Media Law Would Require Consent to Report on Emergencies

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Page A15

BEIJING, June 26 -- The Chinese government has drafted legislation to fine newspapers up to $12,000 if they report on emergencies without first getting permission from local authorities, official media said Monday.

The new restrictions would apply to coverage of natural disasters, health crises and social unrest, such as the riots that have broken out across rural China in recent years. In effect, the draft law would make local governments the sole arbiters of information as they manage emergency situations.




Some journalists expressed hope that the National People's Congress, China's legislature, will reject the draft law's media provisions. In practice, however, the National People's Congress rarely, if ever, contests government decisions.

source

This is not news, although I suppose the acknowledgement that this is the case might be...

[Agrajag]

Edit- Just out of interest and going with your point that government is elected but the press isn't. How many judges are elected in the UK?

None, as far as I'm aware. However I'm not really au fait regarding England and Wales.

In Scotland they are appointed, not elected.

It's quite interesting actually. In Scotland we had to stop using temporary Sheriffs, because they were not ECHR friendly.

Basically the argument was that The Lord Advocate appointed them, on a temporary basis. As he is the prosecutor in Scotland then it was in their interests to keep him happy. So how could they be seen to be impartial. Unlike permanent ones, who once appointed are independent.

[cpt_azad]

What about news/media corporations owned by a certain "group" of people that favour the side and the views of another group(1), even if that group(1) is wrong and doing bad things and oppressing a certain type of people, yet that media corporation will never allow the oppression story to see the light of day.

Catch my drift?

But def. it should not be gov't controlled.

[calm2chaos]

I agree, but with that your assuming the press can and will know when it is best to sensor itself. And I think there are a number of examples, even recently of that not happening. It's a fine line to walk. But with a huge glut of media outlets nowadays there is an ever growing need to snag readership, which I think may impare judgement.

I'm not making the assumption that the press will get it right every time. My view is that I would rather have a free press and not a government censored press.

How many lives is it worth in todays day and age? Because the information being printed now can directly effect the security of a lot of people. A free press without any oversight is as bad as a government sensored press in many regaurds.

[vidcc]

How many lives is it worth in todays day and age? Because the information being printed now can directly effect the security of a lot of people. A free press without any oversight is as bad as a government sensored press in many regaurds.

got an example?

[calm2chaos]

How many lives is it worth in todays day and age? Because the information being printed now can directly effect the security of a lot of people. A free press without any oversight is as bad as a government sensored press in many regaurds.

got an example?

Anything dealing with the tracking of terrorist there networks and there funds. The recent disclosure about the financial tracking programs the government used to watch certain terror groups or cells. But it comes down to anything that may or can hinder the tracking of a group of people that are looking to kill as many as they can without regaurd.

[vidcc]

got an example?

Anything dealing with the tracking of terrorist there networks and there funds. The recent disclosure about the financial tracking programs the government used to watch certain terror groups or cells. But it comes down to anything that may or can hinder the tracking of a group of people that are looking to kill as many as they can without regaurd.

What like the way Bush has been telling the terrorist we have been doing this at regular intervals during political rallies since 9/11 or the publishing of the details on the swift website and in their magazine "dialogue" since they were hired to it? Bush telling the terrorists we are doing this

Now I have heard the the answer to those points ---" well they knew the program existed but not the details of how it's done".

I find it hard to believe that a terrorist group would use the banking system that it knew was being used to track them just because they don't know how it's done.

[calm2chaos]

Anything dealing with the tracking of terrorist there networks and there funds. The recent disclosure about the financial tracking programs the government used to watch certain terror groups or cells. But it comes down to anything that may or can hinder the tracking of a group of people that are looking to kill as many as they can without regaurd.

What like the way Bush has been telling the terrorist we have been doing this at regular intervals during political rallies since 9/11 or the publishing of the details on the swift website and in their magazine "dialogue" since they were hired to it? Bush telling the terrorists we are doing this

Now I have heard the the answer to those points ---" well they knew the program existed but not the details of how it's done".

I find it hard to believe that a terrorist group would use the banking system that it knew was being used to track them just because they don't know how it's done.

Yep ... because if they know something exsists obviously they know everything about it. And they know how to counter it because they know of it's exsistence. If a paper leaks a story with information that is sensitive they should be heavily fined and the owners or CEO's should face a little time in levinworth.

Knowing of somethings exsistance does not mean you know the depth and coverage of it. You know stealth aircraft exsist but that doesn't mean you know the technology or what it is capable of. The more information that is released, the more the wrong people have a chance around it.