"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your RIGHT to say it." – Voltaire
Corporation media outlet sells its time to the campaigns advertisers like all the capitalist countries in the world. The money that they earn always is more based what they guarantee to their advertisers that its propagandas will be seen for viewers, readers, listeners, etc. Once advertisers have access to users, they at the same time, send us messages tantalizing us to buy. The war for obtain the audience is until die, and as we know, in all war the first one who be died is the barer of truth.
In the 90’s, media sector had and expansion process: the massive incorporation of technology and the concentration about who belong the media. In other words, phenomenon of expansion, concentration, and social exclusion.
In all the countries in process of development and in Europe the television and broadcasting were a monopoly of the states. The technology and the transnationalization made possible the transmission of satellite through the frontiers destroying official controls and giving to audience news and more options.
In journalism, the right of freedom of expression can serve as justification for publishing a piece that could affect someone’s privacy or honor. However, in these types of cases the publication could either be found to be justified or not, or put another way, the author of the publication could either be sentenced or not. Exposure to trials with such uncertain outcomes gives one pause as to the deterrent effect of civil legislation, and added to this is the lack of clarity regarding the amount of the fine if convicted.
In Latin America both the American Convention on Human Rights , and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, serve as the legal foundation for certain regulations on media content. However, I maintain that these documents leave little room for possibilities. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that Article 13 of the American Convention “establishes an exception to prior censorship, since it allows it in the case of public entertainment, but only in order to regulate access for the moral protection of children and adolescents. In all other cases, any preventive measure implies the impairment of freedom of thought and expression.” Likewise, Article 13 considers that hate speech shall be an offense punishable by law when it contains an incitement to “violence or to any other similar illegal action.”
The freedom of speech we all hold dear in this country, should it apply only to individuals? I am not sure how anyone could make the case for that. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, no matter who it applies to. Special interest groups already hold sway over a lot of government policy and this does not apply only to corporations. Labor unions are just as guilty and most of them favor the Democrats. I think the term “six of one, half a dozen of another” applies very well to this case.
However, reforms should take into account the weaknesses of the judiciary in Latin America, and should, at a minimum, limit any possibility of interpretation that could restrict press freedom.
But what about organizations which aren’t for-profit businesses seeking commerce? Take for example the Roman Catholic Church: does a sermon made by a priest qualify as individual speech covered by the First Amendment, or is it commercial speech that can be more tightly regulated? As another example, consider an official statement issued by a bishop — which category does that fall into?
Most people, I think, would be inclined to categorize such acts as free speech that is protected by the First Amendment, but what makes them different from a press release issued by an executive of Nike or Coca Cola? Well, the former do invovle a religious organization and religion does receive special protection by the First Amendment, so perhaps we should consider a different example.
Externally imposed restrictions on this type of speech in the interest of limiting the signal-to-noise ratio in publicly available information are abhorrent. It is also an unrealistic expectation for others to believe that the public writ large will suddenly demand only the most pure and relevant information be presented to them — especially given the subjectiveness of relevance. Indeed, the best thing anyone can hope for is that the most information that can be made available to the public is presented to it.
Perhaps we are looking at his incorrectly. If we find that this inconsistency is unacceptable, perhaps the solution is not to grant commercial speech the same protections as other forms of speech; maybe it would be better to hold the other forms of speech to the same standards as commercial speech?
As we see in Intro to Mass Communication class, in the early days, we are having more stuffs about how we can express our freedom speech, obviously, following our 7 cannons of Journalism:
1] - Responsibility
2] – Freedom of press
3] – Independence
4] – Sincerity, Truthfulness, accuracy
5] – Impartiality
6] – Fair play
7] - Decency
No comments:
Post a Comment