How are they legal if they get arrested, and you can call yourself any name you want. and most protests are rarely discussed in the US unlike in China. And even the anti war protests have done nothing to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You're kidding me. Most protests aren't discussed? Ever follow the local news?
As for getting arrested, often it is through violation of laws regarding public disturbance. You don't see crackdowns on every protest and protester do you? Furthermore, protesting is only one of many mediums for public advocacy outside the mainstream. Cherry picking one does not eliminate the existence of the others.
I never said the alternative was perfect, just that it was more open.
Not just private interests, it has to do with government guidelines and laws. There is no fallacy here.
Mind quoting government guidelines that specifically attempt to limit information?
This isnt about the right to flag burning which is legal, why are you trying to derail the fact that censorship is legally allowed under the system where the state is no longer for the people but for those who are in control of most of the wealth and influence.
The problem is I never said censorship wasn't legally allowed. I said censorship wasn't enforced by the state. Two different things. You are trying to draw a false equivalence that's not there. Just because you can find comparable situations does not mean that the whole system is comparable. There is a difference of proportionality and context.
The so called free media is controlled, your definition lacks meaning.
Did I ever say it wasn't? I said that those controls are not implemented by the state and are through multiple competing interests.
Not if you are a pedophile looking for kids or a terrorist, or anyone who is deemed dangerous, public safety is subjective term.
Yes, because that infringes on a more fundamental right of safety. I'm not talking about public safety. I am talking about personal safety.
People have been had the security services knocking on their door because they had said some unflattering things to the former president, people of Arab decent tracked by hidden GPS units and interviewed by the FBI. You live in a fantasy world.
Evidence? In any case, as unfortunate as those circumstances are, I don't see any arrests that happen because someone said something disagreeable to they system. Again, false equivalence.
Yes you are, you are very much a defender of this mythical free media, what is the point if you cant even be honest with yourself?
So when I say that there are problems with the free media system, and when I say the free media system does not guarantee fair, balanced, or recognition of information by the public that is defending it? Who's putting words in whose mouth now? If you disagree though, you'd best tell me what I've said makes you believe that.
Not just violence but also disruption which you admit is also illegal, not only that but the "free" media defines these terms differently depending who is involved.
Again, rights infringing on more fundamental rights. The "free" media does not define what these rights are though. The law does, and the media can protest it (and it does). Don't conflate the actors.
No, more money to insurance companies is the same thing as BUSH, the Glass–Steagall Act was repealed under Clinton which directly contributes to the current crisis , and as I said goal posts are allowed but the things like such as wars, subverting foreign governments, the military industrial complex, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the wall street elites.
Except that wealth concentration wasn't always there, nor was the military industrial complex. You're not going to tell me every American President is the same now are you?
Besides, if you're asserting that subversion happened, Obama didn't go into Egypt, or Iran, or Syria, or Yemen, and only dipped his toe in Libya. That's a pretty bad record if you're insisting they practice active subversion.
The whole media systems is very much tied to the empire, if fact the empire can not exist otherwise.
The media system, if you haven't noticed, also criticizes the "empire", and constantly harps about pulling out from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Actually you were, defending the media, Obama, Google, and if you have no interest you would not have replied.
I was offering an alternative interpretation, where, mind you, I openly criticized both. That is hardly a defence.
Those are just foreign lobbies, playing one against the other, while the emperor is at the center, if anything it further enhances the power of the legitimacy of the empire why should it be banned?
They are foreign lobbies with a lot of influence. Allowance may legitimize that "empire", but it also reigns it in. Dependency is not one way.
Are you blind, the fact that you were discussing whether or not to carve up a foreign country is itself ideological indoctrination, it stinks of Imperialism.
*rollseyes* 1)Where did I discuss carving up a foreign country? 2) if that suggestion was brought up by someone, would disagreeing and repudiating that view imply they were "indoctrinated"? 3) Is your insistence that America is an empire itself not "indoctrination"?
Seriously, let's drop this discussion. I already pointed out that no one is not "indoctrinated". The difference is whether we're all forced to believe one thing or if we can choose to believe what we want.
You dont get it do you, its not about Obama or Bush or whoever is in the white house, its the power behind them that matters.
And would you like to define clearly what "this power behind" is? Because so far, while you've been insisting that there must be "powers behind them", I have been pointing out instances where different "powers" have actually hurt each other. You may keep trying to spin out of that by going "it's all within a goal post", but what would actually qualify as outside it if you keep on moving those goalposts?
And last I checked, Rupert Murdoch wasn't looking too good in the UK. Did someone decide that Rupert Murdoch wasn't one of those spooky powers behind the veil?
That depends on what you mean by allowed and which institution.
People who want the government to cease to exist, Ron Paul, the likes.
Sideshows that do not change the empire.
You underestimate how much those events actually hurt Bush's ability to conduct the war in Iraq, and public support, which btw, if we are to believe the "they went in there for oil and American influence" notion, would be contrary to those interests of your mysterious powers behind the scene.
It does so legally, because the state including those who hold power and influence behind the scenes(elections and interests are all fiscally driven)itself is not a separate entity from the media, yet it tries to create the illusion that they are.
You can argue it's an "illusion", but when Rolling Stones magazine reports on General McChrystal bashing the Obama administration, that has real damaging effects. When the entire media is focused on Watergate, that has real damaging effects. When Valerie Plain's identity is leaked by the White House, that has real damaging effects. When the NYT reports that big business hardly pays taxes, that has real damaging effects. When they report on the Lewinski scandal and Clinton gets impeached, that has real damaging effects.
You can call these distractions, but it hardly seems like the political institutions and the media institutions are united in common cause when one can seriously set back the other's agenda.
I went back and checked. I did bring up indoctrination in response to solarz. However, I was not the one who started the accusations.
You were putting words in to my mouth.
"Are you seriously? Do you see what is happening? People are literally being brainwashed, the so called competing interest are only there to distract but the money and power behind them is the same."
"And you're not brainwashed because?
Also, the alternative doesn't result in the same because?"
"By whom? Unlike you I am not trying to defending any particular media only to criticizing the one that is the most hypocritical and damaging to a society. The results speak for itself."
"I am not defending any particular type of media either--merely explaining what free media is and isn't. I have also not criticized "alternatives". Saying that non-free media also brainwashes is not a criticism, it is a fact. All media brainwashes so long as people don't consume them critically. Just because a media criticizes and damages another society (or its own) does not determine whether it is free or not."
Please point where where I put words in your mouth. As far as I could see, I was merely stating that everyone is brainwashed by something. Nowhere did I say you made the contrary claim. "Saying that"=/="You were saying that".
Your definitions are meaningless unless you understand that there is no free media.
Or you fail to understand that I am clarifying that "free media" is different from what you say it is.
Thats not what you were saying.
What do you think I was saying then?
Does that include defending Google by trying to explain their "real" intentions?
1) I wasn't responding to you regarding google, 2) I wasn't explaining their "real intentions". I was pointing out their behaviors, regardless of whether you see it as moral or not, was not that unusual for a profit seeking corporation.
If they build themselves up as more moralistic then they better more than anyone else live up to it. How convenient to give themselves a pass. If they don't live up to the moralistic life they dictate to others then why should anyone obey? If it's not good enough themselves then it's not good enough for anyone else. Why is it that the people that get to dictate to others somehow don't have to follow their own rules? That makes them worse than anyone else. My problem with what you seem to have said is the Chinese government is worse when it comes to censorship. Why? Because they deny access while the hypocrites deny choice? That's the same thing. Censorship is censorship. If you're aiming to hide or direct people to think a certain way by regulating information no matter how little or how much, that's censorship! We had a newbie around the beginning of the year that said the Chinese would've been worse to African slaves than the West/Europeans. That is in fact wrong because the Chinese never got into the African slave trade so they couldn't have been worse. What was the point of saying that if it weren't to manipulate the facts. That's the same kind of flawed logic to believe denial of access is worse than denying choice just like believing a fictional scenario is a worse crime than the real crime that happened.
All private interests will give themselves a pass. Do they parade around pretending that free media is the best thing since sliced bread? Yes. Does that mean they're right? Not necessarily. However, just because the propagate a myth of free media, doesn't mean that there aren't real and significant difference. In the case of information restriction there is a difference of means, proportionality and consequence, which is substantive and important, and creates a different outcome. I did not say interests in a free media system don't manipulate information for their own ends. I am saying that the power to manipulate is not a monopoly, and with the right tools and conditions anyone could do it. That clash of different interests creates a more open system. Whether that is good or bad is another matter, but the fact is I do have the option of airing my views in public without being punished.
Your example of someone saying Chinese people would have treated African slaves worse also entails an example of you disagreeing. Both were held in a public space. He believes one thing, you believe the other, and guess what? Both of you got to share your views in public without fear of being legally punished. And btw, that person could easily turn around your argument around and accuse you of trying to manipulate fact.
I could argue the other side and say the Chinese media system is meant to prioritize stability in society, and I am sure that someone critical of the Chinese media system would attack me for supporting dictatorial ideology. However, that is not the contention here.
Here's what you don't understand. You think hiding behind business gives them an excuse and somehow makes their censoriship crimes less. The Chinese government can make a better excuse because they're doing it to keep the country from turmoil. I find thinking in black and white where there is either good or evil and nothing else living in a bubble only seeing things from a Western point of view not being at all a world flourishing of choice. What do the communists do? It ain't worse. You can make the argument that it's the same but you can never say the other side has it better when it comes to corrupt government practices.
I did not say it was an excuse. If you haven't noticed, I'm not saying it's great that they can behave that way. Also, throughout this discussion I did not say that private interests don't censor. I am saying that whatever they censor, someone else can present what was censored, so even if the private interest censors the information, it can still exist in the public space. In regards to Google however, have you seriously not tried searching for 中国 in the news? I am sure you will pull up plenty of articles that are written in the Chinese perspective, since it's a bit difficult to find English articles written from a Chinese perspective (language barrier and all). In any case, I did not say private interests don't discriminate. I said that there are alternatives to those private interests that can counteract them. For example, I am free to read China Daily without censorship. If I remember correctly that's no longer the case with CNN in China.
