data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a2751/a2751c0d2c8be7fecf78344e73656222f5646e89" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8842c/8842cf82418b287faeda67bee613d432fd9f6b2a" alt=""
And on this day finds itself another one of those Sundays that has
rolled around, the Sabbath, the day of rest, the day of God, or is that
Saturday. And yet I find myself blaghing away for some reason. And I am
not sure if I have blaghed about the topic of censorship or even
discrimination, on this blog before, as I would have to search this blog
to see, and that's if it would even appear and has not been censored.
And with a website name called "No Police State" versus "Pro Police
State", that name of a website surely finds itself entertaining the
subject of censorship every so often in a conservative, patriotic or
traditional world, or whatever you may want to call it, even in the age
of digital and social media where transparency and alternative voices
have a better chance of reaching the light. And so I decided to post
some of those images in internetland of those "The Worst Part of
Censorship Is XXXXXX XXXXX" images. And an interesting article that I
came across in internetland regarding that topic of censorship, The Worst Part of Censorship...., reads as follows. And what, if anything, does this have to do with a No Police State. Have a great day of the sun and more.
Censorship is such an ugly word. In the context that it’s often used
(internet piracy, journalism, and media) it sounds like it’s either the
best or worst thing to ever happen to information flow. The definition
of censor is “an official who examines books, plays, news reports,
motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams,
etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on
moral, political, military, or other grounds.” (via
dictionary.com)
Most recently, after the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the government
made the choice to not allow the photos to be released or made public in
any fashion. In some regards, this is censorship. In a journalistic
sense, censorship largely is not an issue in the United States. It is
most prevalent in other countries such as China, North Korea, etc.
Freedom of speech, however it is exercised is something that we take for
granted here in America. It’s not something that we have to march for
or fight over. It’s already clearly granted in our constitution.
However, do we
truly have free speech? Are our words and actions in the truest sense of the word;
free?
Is there a system of government, or a collection of special interest
groups and corporations that make up a large part of the information
that we see on a daily basis? Does the information stream have it’s
bottlenecks, wherein words are lost not truly free to move about as
dictated entirely by the consumer?
WikiLeaks
Take
WikiLeaks,
for example. The self claimed goal of WikiLeaks (according to their
site) is as follows; “WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation.
Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We
provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak
information to our journalists (our electronic drop box).” Generally
speaking, what’s wrong with that? Journalistically, the concept behind
WikiLeaks is nothing more than an aggressive means in which to release
information (which we claim is free in the United States) to the public,
in this case, online. Any true journalist should be more concerned with
the relevance and impact of their story (information) than where the
chips might fall should the story be published. WikiLeaks has faded from
the public eye in some ways, but they’re continuing to do what they’ve
always done.
Information
The point of information is to be shared, and in the high tech world
we live in where terabytes of documents can be blasted around the world
in matters of moments, it’s a journalists dream. If information is truly
free as we claim it is, sites like WikiLeaks, and the free flow of
information should be as open as possible. If there’s a problem with the
government, or key insight into how and where taxpayer dollars are
spent, for example, this information should be made available to the
public, regardless of the consequences. Journalists have to be free to
publish their information; and in the even that they’re not, there is
always the internet.