NationStates Jolt Archive

What rites, if any, do the media have to censor new topics? i understand that there is the thought of censoring to pretect children from graphic situations, but what percentage of kids actually watch the news anyways. and besides, kids are growing up faster in the world today and are learning about stuff from elsewhere in the world, so y not present it in a news format?

media can legally choose what to air without being afraid of a censorship suit. As much as it annoys me, its legal. Whoever controls the company (besides the FCC) decides what to show, and that choice is reflected throughout the agencies.

Look, in the proposals list, I've one called the "Sanctity of Mass Media" which protects the media from nasty censorship. Please tell your delegates. :)

- The Rep of Komokom. Its good, it may make your head hurt, but the mods cleared it as being all legal and nice and good. Did I say it was good? :wink:

ban censorship

=^^=
.../\...

If a media outlet distributes paid ads for a political candidate, it should do the dame for all opponents. That is only fair.

OOC: I assume you are talking about the real world, and not the countries in Nation States.

There are two kinds of censorship: "Self Censorship", where you voluntarily choose to not say something; and "Imposed Censorship", where another power tels you to not say things.

Self Censorship is legal everywhere, and Imposed Censorship is generally frowned upon in many places. However, when the people talking are a very small minority - the difference between Self Censorship and Imposed Censorship in actual effect is pretty much non existant.

For example: In the United States, the vast bulk of the media is in the hands of a very small number of people - who are in turn very rich and powerful. They have a very disproportionate influence on government policy, and the owners (those whose final choice is all self censorship) are in general far more politically conservative than the average American Citizen.

The results of this are fairly interesting: did you know that the "War on Terror" actually successfully captured a real terrorist with a chemical bomb capable of killing hundreds of people? Did you know that this terrorist was apprehended on US soil, and had written plans for its deployment against civillians in the United States? Probably not, I'm guessing, even though this happened months ago. This didn't get carried by any major news agencies inside the United States except the Christian Science Monitor (which didn't exactly explode with this information either).

Federal authorities this year mounted one of the most extensive investigations of domestic terrorism since the Oklahoma City bombing, CBS 11 has learned.

Three people linked to white supremacist and anti-government groups are in custody. At least one weapon of mass destruction - a sodium cyanide bomb capable of delivering a deadly gas cloud - has been seized in the Tyler area.

Investigators have seized at least 100 other bombs, bomb components, machine guns, 500,000 rounds of ammunition and chemical agents. But the government also found some chilling personal documents indicating that unknown co-conspirators may still be free to carry out what appeared to be an advanced plot. And, authorities familiar with the case say more potentially deadly cyanide bombs may be in circulation.

And here's why: This man was a white supremacist, not a towel head. He's a Texan Millitant, not a foreign demon. And because he's not part of the current spin on how terrorism supposedly happens - he doesn't get any print.

And that's legal. If you own the media, you can censor it all you want. Restrictions on Censorship, by defintion, can only do any good if there is more than one viewpoint allowed into print in the first place.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm

Your attempts to stop Censorship, while laudable, are basically pointless. The Censors have gotten better - now they just buy all the newsfeeds and scuttle "their own stories".

OOC: I assume you are talking about the real world, and not the countries in Nation States.

There are two kinds of censorship: "Self Censorship", where you voluntarily choose to not say something; and "Imposed Censorship", where another power tels you to not say things.

Self Censorship is legal everywhere, and Imposed Censorship is generally frowned upon in many places. However, when the people talking are a very small minority - the difference between Self Censorship and Imposed Censorship in actual effect is pretty much non existant.

For example: In the United States, the vast bulk of the media is in the hands of a very small number of people - who are in turn very rich and powerful. They have a very disproportionate influence on government policy, and the owners (those whose final choice is all self censorship) are in general far more politically conservative than the average American Citizen.

The results of this are fairly interesting: did you know that the "War on Terror" actually successfully captured a real terrorist with a chemical bomb capable of killing hundreds of people? Did you know that this terrorist was apprehended on US soil, and had written plans for its deployment against civillians in the United States? Probably not, I'm guessing, even though this happened months ago. This didn't get carried by any major news agencies inside the United States except the Christian Science Monitor (which didn't exactly explode with this information either).

Federal authorities this year mounted one of the most extensive investigations of domestic terrorism since the Oklahoma City bombing, CBS 11 has learned.

Three people linked to white supremacist and anti-government groups are in custody. At least one weapon of mass destruction - a sodium cyanide bomb capable of delivering a deadly gas cloud - has been seized in the Tyler area.

Investigators have seized at least 100 other bombs, bomb components, machine guns, 500,000 rounds of ammunition and chemical agents. But the government also found some chilling personal documents indicating that unknown co-conspirators may still be free to carry out what appeared to be an advanced plot. And, authorities familiar with the case say more potentially deadly cyanide bombs may be in circulation.

And here's why: This man was a white supremacist, not a towel head. He's a Texan Millitant, not a foreign demon. And because he's not part of the current spin on how terrorism supposedly happens - he doesn't get any print.

And that's legal. If you own the media, you can censor it all you want. Restrictions on Censorship, by defintion, can only do any good if there is more than one viewpoint allowed into print in the first place.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm

Your attempts to stop Censorship, while laudable, are basically pointless. The Censors have gotten better - now they just buy all the newsfeeds and scuttle "their own stories".

OOC: I assume you are talking about the real world, and not the countries in Nation States.

There are two kinds of censorship: "Self Censorship", where you voluntarily choose to not say something; and "Imposed Censorship", where another power tels you to not say things.

Self Censorship is legal everywhere, and Imposed Censorship is generally frowned upon in many places. However, when the people talking are a very small minority - the difference between Self Censorship and Imposed Censorship in actual effect is pretty much non existant.

For example: In the United States, the vast bulk of the media is in the hands of a very small number of people - who are in turn very rich and powerful. They have a very disproportionate influence on government policy, and the owners (those whose final choice is all self censorship) are in general far more politically conservative than the average American Citizen.

The results of this are fairly interesting: did you know that the "War on Terror" actually successfully captured a real terrorist with a chemical bomb capable of killing hundreds of people? Did you know that this terrorist was apprehended on US soil, and had written plans for its deployment against civillians in the United States? Probably not, I'm guessing, even though this happened months ago. This didn't get carried by any major news agencies inside the United States except the Christian Science Monitor (which didn't exactly explode with this information either).

Federal authorities this year mounted one of the most extensive investigations of domestic terrorism since the Oklahoma City bombing, CBS 11 has learned.

Three people linked to white supremacist and anti-government groups are in custody. At least one weapon of mass destruction - a sodium cyanide bomb capable of delivering a deadly gas cloud - has been seized in the Tyler area.

Investigators have seized at least 100 other bombs, bomb components, machine guns, 500,000 rounds of ammunition and chemical agents. But the government also found some chilling personal documents indicating that unknown co-conspirators may still be free to carry out what appeared to be an advanced plot. And, authorities familiar with the case say more potentially deadly cyanide bombs may be in circulation.

And here's why: This man was a white supremacist, not a towel head. He's a Texan Millitant, not a foreign demon. And because he's not part of the current spin on how terrorism supposedly happens - he doesn't get any print.

And that's legal. If you own the media, you can censor it all you want. Restrictions on Censorship, by defintion, can only do any good if there is more than one viewpoint allowed into print in the first place.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm

Your attempts to stop Censorship, while laudable, are basically pointless. The Censors have gotten better - now they just buy all the newsfeeds and scuttle "their own stories".

OOC: I assume you are talking about the real world, and not the countries in Nation States.

There are two kinds of censorship: "Self Censorship", where you voluntarily choose to not say something; and "Imposed Censorship", where another power tels you to not say things.

Self Censorship is legal everywhere, and Imposed Censorship is generally frowned upon in many places. However, when the people talking are a very small minority - the difference between Self Censorship and Imposed Censorship in actual effect is pretty much non existant.

For example: In the United States, the vast bulk of the media is in the hands of a very small number of people - who are in turn very rich and powerful. They have a very disproportionate influence on government policy, and the owners (those whose final choice is all self censorship) are in general far more politically conservative than the average American Citizen.

The results of this are fairly interesting: did you know that the "War on Terror" actually successfully captured a real terrorist with a chemical bomb capable of killing hundreds of people? Did you know that this terrorist was apprehended on US soil, and had written plans for its deployment against civillians in the United States? Probably not, I'm guessing, even though this happened months ago. This didn't get carried by any major news agencies inside the United States except the Christian Science Monitor (which didn't exactly explode with this information either).

Federal authorities this year mounted one of the most extensive investigations of domestic terrorism since the Oklahoma City bombing, CBS 11 has learned.

Three people linked to white supremacist and anti-government groups are in custody. At least one weapon of mass destruction - a sodium cyanide bomb capable of delivering a deadly gas cloud - has been seized in the Tyler area.

Investigators have seized at least 100 other bombs, bomb components, machine guns, 500,000 rounds of ammunition and chemical agents. But the government also found some chilling personal documents indicating that unknown co-conspirators may still be free to carry out what appeared to be an advanced plot. And, authorities familiar with the case say more potentially deadly cyanide bombs may be in circulation.

And here's why: This man was a white supremacist, not a towel head. He's a Texan Millitant, not a foreign demon. And because he's not part of the current spin on how terrorism supposedly happens - he doesn't get any print.

And that's legal. If you own the media, you can censor it all you want. Restrictions on Censorship, by defintion, can only do any good if there is more than one viewpoint allowed into print in the first place.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm

Your attempts to stop Censorship, while laudable, are basically pointless. The Censors have gotten better - now they just buy all the newsfeeds and scuttle "their own stories".

The owner of a media outlet has every right to decide what he will and will not present.

"The owner of a media outlet has every right to decide what he will and will not present."

No, he/she does not necessarily have this right. I would suggest that in most nations he/she does not have the right to print articles and photographs extolling the virtues of child pornography.

Individual freedoms are not absolute and cannot be, as there will always be someone whose freedom is infringed by another's.

I would suggest that in most nations he/she does not have the right to

The issue of whether or not supporting child porn (NOT child porn itself) is within one's rights, your quote belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of rights.

Rights transcend political boundaries. They are inherent to each individual, and not subject to granting or revocation by government fiat. Government can choose whether or not to recognize and allow the exercise of certain rights, but that's not the same as saying that those rights do not exist.

It's more than just semantics. It's the fundamental philosophical difference between a free society and a despotic regime.

No, he/she does not necessarily have this right. I would suggest that in most nations he/she does not have the right to print articles and photographs extolling the virtues of child pornography.
The pictures would be a problem here but we would allow the article.

Of course people have a right to voice there disagreement by writing letters or boycotting the paper.

And it won’t change our laws.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

The owner of a media outlet has every right to decide what he will and will not present.

Of course he does, just as governments have every right to punish them for heir choices.

But the point is, once you've allowed the owner of a media outlet unlimited ability to censor things, then it doesn't really matter if anyone else can censor it or not. The media outlet is completely censorsed and only represents one point of view.

So all this talk about protecting it from other censorship is just jibber jabber.

Don't make me come over there.

Sorry - my last post was rushed and ill thought-out. I acknowledge and accept the points raised by G-Bugles and The Black New World. Maybe I should have explicitly stated that the article was child pornography, rather than in support of child pornography.

I suppose it depends on the definition of 'rights'.

I was alluding to something a little different; however, this could slip into a horrible (and probably dull) debate about semantics, so I'll say no more, especially as I'm likely to be about 99% in agreement with you.

The owner of a media outlet has every right to decide what he will and will not present.

Of course he does, just as governments have every right to punish them for heir choices.

But the point is, once you've allowed the owner of a media outlet unlimited ability to censor things, then it doesn't really matter if anyone else can censor it or not. The media outlet is completely censorsed and only represents one point of view.

So what? It's HIS outlet. If people want other views to be presented, they're free to do so. They just can't force someone else to let them use HIS media outlet.

So what? It's HIS outlet. If people want other views to be presented, they're free to do so. They just can't force someone else to let them use HIS media outlet.

In what way is that media Outlet HIS? Or HERS even?

The distribution of information is a service being provided in society, just like building roads, growing food, or maintaining communications such as phones and internet connections. Like any other service being provided in society, it is subject to the approval of society at large - regardless of the opinions of whatever single person a selfish society has managed to allow control over it.

In a privatized economy, a single person can build a road - but they still can't make it out of human kidneys, and they can't shoot at black people who try to drive on it. A single person could grow tomatoes - but they still can't fill them with razor blades or charge three times as much to chinese people. A single person can make a phone linkage across the sea - but they still can't listen in and disconnect anyone who tries to have a conversation in German.

Just because your economy is privatized does not mean that your industries are above the laws of your society. It just means that you've allowed individuals to tax each other proportionate to the services they receive.

Media is a service in your society. If your society wants it to mention things that the person running it doesn't want to mention - this is exactly the same as if society wanted the farmer to sell tomatoes to chinese people and he didn't want to. The demands of the society always win - to do otherwise is dictatorship.

Good night, everyone.

Oh, bullshit. If I own a newspaper, then it is my decision as to what does and does not get printed in it. If you want to print something that I won't print, go ahead--but you don't get to use my newspaper to do it.

Neither I nor anyone else exists for the sake of "society". "Society" is just a name given to an agglomeration of individuals--it is neither an entity nor an end in itself.

If ‘society’ doesn’t buy your newspaper then it will go out of business.

Ultimately the consumer controls the product.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Oh, bullshit. If I own a newspaper, then it is my decision as to what does and does not get printed in it. If you want to print something that I won't print, go ahead--but you don't get to use my newspaper to do it.

And if "your" factory wants to pour carcinogenic fumes all over our town, that's none of our concern?

And if "your" automobile company wants to make substandard gas tanks that explode sometimes without telling anyone, that's none of our concern either?

Just because you are making money from something doesn't mean that it's a good idea for the whole of the people. And if something isn't good for the whole of the people, the government has a responsibility to stop you from doing it.

You might sell more papers accusing various people of pedophilia, witchcraft, or whatever the latest and greatest scandal is - but if that's not true you are still criminally liable. That's censorship, yes, but it's the responsibility of the government to enforce that censorship lest these "owners" you have such a hard on for step on the rights of others.

Good night, everyone.

Oh, bullshit. If I own a newspaper, then it is my decision as to what does and does not get printed in it. If you want to print something that I won't print, go ahead--but you don't get to use my newspaper to do it.

And if "your" factory wants to pour carcinogenic fumes all over our town, that's none of our concern?

And if "your" automobile company wants to make substandard gas tanks that explode sometimes without telling anyone, that's none of our concern either?

Just because you are making money from something doesn't mean that it's a good idea for the whole of the people. And if something isn't good for the whole of the people, the government has a responsibility to stop you from doing it.

You might sell more papers accusing various people of pedophilia, witchcraft, or whatever the latest and greatest scandal is - but if that's not true you are still criminally liable. That's censorship, yes, but it's the responsibility of the government to enforce that censorship lest these "owners" you have such a hard on for step on the rights of others.

Do you have any idea what we're talking about?

Are you really that ignorant as to equate activities that directly cause physical harm to others with choosing what is and is not printed in a privately owned newspaper?

Are you really that ignorant that you are incapable of distinguishing the special case of slander from everything else?

Seriously, learn to think.

Do you have any idea what we're talking about?

Are you really that ignorant as to equate activities that directly cause physical harm to others with choosing what is and is not printed in a privately owned newspaper?

Are you really that naive as to suggest that a newspaper that, for example, whips up hatred against an ethnic or religious group by propagating lies, that denies that an act of genocide really occurred, or that drives a public figure to suicide by relentless harassment and public disclosure of private information should not take responsibility for the consequences as if it had directly caused physical harm?

It is perhaps worth noting that, while a few old white men might own the companies, the citizens of the United States own the airwaves on which those messages are transmitted on. To that end, the citizens of the United States are allowed to decide what is aired and what isn't aired to an extent. Thats why censorship laws against indecent messages are upheld. So yes, if you own newspaper that puts out explicit literature, you're welcome to do so, and you can spend all day long selling hard-core porn (sans minors) on DVD, but you'll be hard pressed to get that on the airwaves without suffering some pretty fantastic fines.

I don't think the issue here is censorship, however. It has more to do with consolidation, which lies in much trickier legal territory. Lets say, for example, you're living in Des Moines and running for mayor when the Register (the only major newspaper in the city) decides to endorse the other candidate. Now, all the print media in the city is viciously against you. You're welcome, via the constitution, to set up your own newspaper and defend your good name, but good luck buying a press and building the distribution networks.

When media power becomes limited to the hands of five or six individuals, it becomes possible to destroy the marketplace ideas with the concept of self-censorship. Take, for example, the decision by CBS to bar MoveOn.org from placing its ad during the Super Bowl. Because one media company controlled the entire operation, they were able to effectively censor views they didn't like without legal repricussion. This isn't an isolated incident. Clear Channel, also heavily Republican, has refused to sell billboards to the Democratic Party in Missouri. They can cite self-censorship all day long while people have their voices squelched.

Now, is this a violation of free speech? We don't know. This is quasi-legal territory that requires a whole lot of communication background to fully understand. But the point is plainly obvious: when the number of companies owning media shrinks to fewer and fewer, so do the opportunities for minority groups to get their voices heard.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

It is perhaps worth noting that, while a few old white men might own the companies, the citizens of the United States own the airwaves on which those messages are transmitted on.

Fallacy. The "airwaves" are produced by the transmitter. They are not pre-existing entities that are latched onto.

It is perhaps worth noting that, while a few old white men might own the companies, the citizens of the United States own the airwaves on which those messages are transmitted on.

Fallacy. The "airwaves" are produced by the transmitter. They are not pre-existing entities that are latched onto.

So your claim is that anyone can do anything they want with things they "own".

Or to put it another way: people who are sufficiently rich can perform actions which would be crimes if committed by anyone else.

This may seem "obvious" to you, but honestly it seems terrifying to us. How is the case of a wealthy individual purchasing the newspaper and then burying stories about criminal actions any different from a poor man hiding a wanted fugitive in his house? In either case, they are directly aiding the commission of criminal actions through restriction of information distribution. That's a crime in Kappastan, it's a crime in most places.

So if you claim that people with sufficient funds can "own things" thereby gaining the right to commit crimes - how about Slavery? You put your money down, you buy a human being, you torture them or not as you choose, and noone who isn't your property is hurt, right? So by this model of ownership excusing criminal behavior, that's OK.

Of course it isn't OK. Slavery is illegal in Kappastan, it's illegal in most places. Regardless of whether you manage to own a human being or not, you are still subject to the law. No exceptions. If the people, through their representitives in the government, have determined that your actions are criminal, it doesn't make a bottle cap's worth of difference whether you "owned" everything that you used to commit the crimes with or not.

The government has a responsibility to uphold the will of the people, and if one person's personal property is in the path of that will that's simply too bad for them. If the people say that flogging a man is criminal - its criminal, and it doesn't matter whether you own the person and the flog or not. If the people say that suppressing information about major criminal events and potential dangers is criminal - its criminal, regardless of whether you own the printing presses.

When you sell medicine, you can't voluntarily suppress information about the side effects, even if you own the wrapper. The people have long ago decided that they have a right to know things which are important to them - and that is simply more important than your right to print whatever you want on the labels of your medicines. Or your newspapers, for that matter.

Good night, everyone.

At the risk of looking like a vacillating ninny, I'm going to renege on my previous statement (again). Let's just say I was a wee bit tired before...

Rights are not intrinsic. They are not natural. You have the right to nothing under natural law. You do not have the right to have children, run your own media outlet, vote, etc, unless you or another agent is capable of defining and granting thesen rights to yourself.

I think 'rights' are a by-product of sentience. We are self-aware creatures who develop a sense of what we wish for ourselves and others. This awareness is translated into laws, principles and ethics. We may choose to believe that we have the 'right' to do something, but nobody is obliged to pay any attention to this choice. It just so happens that society (which does exist, G Bugles) has developed to the stage where, thankfully, we can enshrine certain 'rights' in law.

Ah, the blissful world of semantics.