In order for a society to claim to be open and free, this statement suggests that the press must have unlimited freedom to disseminate information or opinions to the public.
Censorship comes in forms ranging from purposeful exclusion of information to imprisonment of those who choose to voice their concerns or opinions that contradict common ideology.
A free society should allow its press to express ideas, concerns, or information to the public. A country that silences its citizens' right to speak freely is not a free society because it strips away the fundamental right to free speech. Take, for example, Venezuela where the press has been under constant scrutiny by President Hugo Chavez. Anyone who voices criticism of the government can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 20 months.
On the other hand, there are times when a free society should limit the press when national security is at risk. Under this umbrella, laws should be enforced to prevent disclosure of undercover CIA operatives. The exposure of these workers will not only put them in harms way, but will also botch U.S. efforts to protect its citizens.
The deciding factor that justifies press censorship is whether or not national security is at risk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The thread of sarcasm is clearly visible to me. Let me ask you this:
Assuming the administration finds out that a huge meteor is hitting Earth (and possibly compromising the US) in a week, then is there enough justification to censor that since it may well be threatenin to national security?
You reminded me of Wag The Dog when I read this thread. If you haven't seen it yet, it is an amazing movie.
it is difficult to argue on a side that you don't agree with...
haven't seen the movie..maybe i will one day :)
Post a Comment