thelinuxlink.net

I found this article with the question and answer given, i had a discussion with troels about it and we had a interesting and lengthy chat.
taken from http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol5/loach_media.htm

2Q: Given this almost absolute control of the mass media by economic and political elites, what meaning can we assign to the right of free speech? Is it only a facade which is used by the elites in covering the real role of the mass media in reproducing the ideology of an exploitative and hierarchical society?

A: Free speech exists as an abstract concept. I mean, the weight of the ideological consensus at the heart of the press and broadcasting and ordinary discourse is so great that free speech becomes meaningless. Somebody coined the phrase “repressive tolerance”, which I think is very appropriate in this case. Points of view that are perceived as being strange, odd or bizarre are tolerated but, then, some of their force is taken away because of the strength of the prevailing ideas. So, they exist as eccentricities around the edge. In this context, those in power can say “yes, we have freedom of speech” but these ideas, or more accurately these speeches, are rendered ineffective by the overwhelming tidal weight of the prevailing ideas.

That's an interesting concept, but we do have free speech, we use it everyday to challenge the status quo, illegitimate uses of power, and injustices of all different kinds. Just because one particular prevailing idea or belief is held, that doesn't in any way prevent someone from taking on an opposing view. Free speech may be rendered ineffective in some cases, but does that in any way make it less truthful? I don't think so.

At the moment there is no "real" opposing threat to the capitalist model we have talked about in the other thread. If there was I believe freedom of speech would be under threat. If you look at the early 20th century, freedom of speech was controlled. In America socialism/communism was pretty close to being a reality. So the government at the time went to extreme measures to oppressive unions speech.
Look up the The Wobblies history if your interested. Since the 1970s free speech has been granted along with a massive decline in union strength and the threat of socialism/communism is non-existant.

is this a case against freedom of speech?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm

allix wrote:is this a case against freedom of speech?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm

You can make all the arguments in the world, but F!CKING HELL FUCKBALL NO is any ever gonna be valid! Freedom of speech is the core dependency of a free society. A society without freedom of speech (Hint: China), is not a free society and is never gonna be.

According to reporters without borders USA ranks 48th in the world, that is pretty low. Uk is 24 , Denmark is 8, which did not surprise me at all. Number one being Iceland..
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

I read this on a forum.. i am sure the person does not mind me quoting ...

I was driving into work yesterday listening to K-ROCK (station in NJ) and was listening to a journo being interviewed. He'd just released a book about his experiences in Iraq. He'd specifically not gone there as an embed. Alot of his comments were quite critical of the whole set up across there. How the new troops would be all 'there to help the Iraqis and for peace' and would quickly become unapproachable and cynical, the drug use by the soldiers in theatre, the abuses and torture, how the US seems to be aiming to be there indefinitely, etc. Just as he was getting into full flow the interview was chopped, completely different one came on. It was like I'd switched stations. Really wierd.

It was unfortunate that I missed the start of it, because I didn't hear the guys name.

Troels, what does that tell you about freedom of speech in the USA ? is it going down the plug-hole ?

allix wrote:According to reporters without borders USA ranks 48th in the world, that is pretty low. Uk is 24 , Denmark is 8, which did not surprise me at all. Number one being Iceland..
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

I read this on a forum.. i am sure the person does not mind me quoting ...

I was driving into work yesterday listening to K-ROCK (station in NJ) and was listening to a journo being interviewed. He'd just released a book about his experiences in Iraq. He'd specifically not gone there as an embed. Alot of his comments were quite critical of the whole set up across there. How the new troops would be all 'there to help the Iraqis and for peace' and would quickly become unapproachable and cynical, the drug use by the soldiers in theatre, the abuses and torture, how the US seems to be aiming to be there indefinitely, etc. Just as he was getting into full flow the interview was chopped, completely different one came on. It was like I'd switched stations. Really wierd.

It was unfortunate that I missed the start of it, because I didn't hear the guys name.

Troels, what does that tell you about freedom of speech in the USA ? is it going down the plug-hole ?

Well, it doesn't say anything about the status of freedom of speech directly, it just says that the owners of that radio station are anti-free speech, or want to censor the stuff they broadcast for whatever reason. I mean say I came on TLLTS and said something that upset Dann, he could kick me off, he has the full right to do so, because it's his radio program, or "his station" if you will. In some cases this can be justified, because if a guy came on and started making death threats, it's perfectly OK to kick him off, because not doing so, in my opinion, essentially violates people's civil liberties.

The guy who had written a book about the things mentioned, have utilized freedom of speech AND freedom of the press to do so. I mean if he got arrested for writing that book, or saying the things he said, well yeah then free of speech would be something Bush had just flushed down his toilet drain.

When I talk about freedom of speech, and argue that it's important, I am talking about an individual's ability to actually say something and not be imprisoned, tortured or killed for doing so. Stations like K-Rock censoring what people say on their broadcast, are less of an issue (Although if you asked me about their actions, I would lambast them) because the guy that was on the show can still say what he feels needs to be said. It's not like North Korea, where you and your family will be sent to a nazi-style prison camp because you say that Kim Jong-Il is a dick.
I have a tendency to look at things from a very broad viewpoint, which in this case is to compare something that may seem problematic to the extreme cases where something is very very bad.

When the CIA comes to Emmanuel Goldstein's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Wall_(radio)) house and throws him in jail for criticizing the Bush administration (Which he does), then we know that freedom of speech is being peed on.