Bah. Sorry I went off on that tangent. I was having a bit of difficulty in understanding your argument. It’s totally my fault.
– I’ve been playing way too much Civ V.
I might as well explain my position from first principles right here. I’m HOPING this clears things up somewhat.
In order to guarantee a free and fair society where power is dispersed as far as possible and not concentrated in the hands of a few, the strength and integrity of the democratic process is paramount. To ensure this, individuals must be free to advocate the ideas they feel strongly about. There is a good medium for sorting out good ideas from bad, and that’s the process itself. We as the many need to be able to decide for ourselves what kind of society we want. Once you start restricting the matter and manner of what people are allowed to pitch into that democratic process you start moving away from rule of the many and you start moving towards the rule of a few. The second objection to restricting the flow of ideas, whether they be good or bad is that you’re inhibiting people from advocating for positions that they feel passionate about which is a form of oppression.
You can probably find that thread in most of my arguments. My arguments against intellectualism as a form of elitism which concentrates power to a few, to my argument in favour of open primaries and recall mechanisms which disperses power downwards to everyone. From public funding for political campaigns to national curriculums.
In saying this, I absolutely support the existence of defamation legislation. Defamation isn’t about the exercise of power. It’s about compensating individuals who have suffered measurable damage from your actions. It’s another tort, just like negligence or trespass to person. The democratic process cannot really be harmed by the existence of defamation and to the extent it can, that's where the numerous defences come into play.
I’m not exactly sure where you pieced together that I was in favour of restricting ownership, I was under the impression that the media laws were about relaxing regulations on ownership and allowing a lot more players into the market, especially in rural areas. I might be mistaken though. For the record I might as well just say that as a general rule I’m not for restricting ownership except in the case of a monopoly and that’s only to ensure pluralism, which again is a requisite of a proper democracy. Same goes for advertising laws. I’m not sure which ones I said I support. It can sometimes be a bit hard to keep track considering I’m usually arguing with about half a dozen people at a time. I mean my level of support varies depending on if we’re talking about political advertisements or laws banning false and misleading product advertisements.
My Uncle was thrown in prison for having a selection of communist texts and exacerbated his sham sentence given to him by professing to be a communist. Much the similar thing happened to my Father, but his sentence was a lot shorter. Another two relatives were killed in a protest, they were shot by police officers. My parents are from a country that in relation to media laws, is almost exactly like the one Orwell describes. To this day, prisons there are full of Journalists, they’ve just passed an internet censorship bill and another bill to ‘reign-in’ the judiciary. There were protests a year ago, and over three million people participated, yet news of the protest were never broadcast over the news.
I feel like been able to see the effects of what happens when societies go down this path. It is true that my experiences have shaped my position on this issue, but that doesn’t mean my position is irrational or inconsistent. Hopefully this clears it up. Feel free to take me to task if I'm still rambling on like a madman.
P.S: Not too confrontational haha. It’s all good we’re having a debate about issues that inspire a lot of passion in people. I have a thick skin. I have to keep coming back to this thread or maybe I’m just a sucker for punishment.....
