wt would happen if it went tho? will celebrities be free?
LMAO @ celebreties being free….
It would mean everything you heard and read was spoon fed to you by the government.
For social studies I have to write why freedom of the press was important to the abolitionist movement but I don’t know what freedom of the press is and the rights it gives us. Can anyone give me and easy to understand description of it?
Freedom of the press gave people the right to publish their opinions in the newspaper, where as in other countries if you published a negative opinion about an important politician or something you could get killed. It was important to the abolitionists because they could speak their minds freely and get their opinions across to others without being restricted.
If it is not a lie…they should not have screwed up. We publish criminals names for a reason. Humiliation is an effective tool to manage societal behaviors, to maintain a functioning norm of behavior.
Does the bill in congress that will give the president the power to shut off the internet during emergencies threaten freedom of the press since many newspaper are going completely online and a growing number of people get all of their news online ? During emergencies is when we need the press in my view
yes, it does.
working on a school project and need to know!
Death!
I know that the ideas of montesquieu and such prepared the people to accept the idea of a republic even before they realised they wanted it.. but could someone go into more depth about that?
also, how did the unequal representation of the third estate in the Estates General affect the revolution besides the fact that it caused the third estate to break away and take the "tennis court oath"?
thanks in advance!
To your first question, I think the philosophers like Montesquieu and Rousseau gave revolutionaries a kind of blueprint for how to build their government. Most people realized there had to be some sort of reform, but the shape that took was based on how people interpreted various philosophers’ positions. More to your point, I think the ideas raised by philosophers about government made people realize that there could be something else other than absolute monarchy; that there was an alternative. What that alternative was exactly was a thing that was ruthlessly debated throughout the Revolution.
To your second question, I’m not entirely sure of the answer, though I might tie the Third Estate’s unequal representation in with the general frustration of the masses towards the aristocracy. It was a view of city-dwellers in Paris that at any moment the king’s forces may be unleashed to crush the Revolution, and this led to the storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789. Also, in the countryside, the peasants were afraid of hired goons sent on them by their landlords, which led to peasants destroying their land owners’ tax papers, etc. All of these things came from a belief that the aristocracy was trying to stop reform in its tracks. The paralysis in the Estates-General might have been an early example of this to many city-dwellers or peasants, who wanted to see reform happen, but only saw aristocrats delaying and undermining any attempts at reform. (I’m not sure if that’s the answer you were looking for, but that’s what I came up with, hope it helps!)
I ‘am making a research about press legislation& freedom and i want to know what theoretical approach is proper for this study .I need a theory that merges between communication and law .
You can use the Equal Opportunity Law in the US as an example and do research on it.
The common people are told a story that they can’t respond too. Most have no vision, so they see the story as fact. Is the press a tool used to keep the masses in alignment? The press is a brainwasher for the moronic. WOW, its so easy to control the common people! Comments?
Well, TV stations like Fox really do brainwash the common person because they don’t know better. they don’t have teachers in school to tell them that this is all wrong, that you can’t believe everything you are told. TV’s all controlled by politicians now, but we now have the internet that is equaliy popular to tell us the truth. Luckly, there are still people who don’t trust everything they hear, which is how there is still some freedom of expression.
i would give an example when princess diana died because of car accident the reason of the accident is because of the reporters or her paparazzi.. so do you think that sometimes freedom of press is dangerous or have bad effects…
Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s Final Speech In the Constitutional Convention (available at http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist121/Part2/franklin.htm)
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 – 1790)
should the press have the right to say whatever they want? or should they have every word they say censured?
It is important that the press be free of censorship. However there should be responsibility attached.
In the United Kingdom, if any branch of the media makes an error or deliberately tells an untruth they are obliged by law to correct the error in an equally or more prominent way. Except the newspapers.
For some reason the papers are exempt. If The Daily Mail or News of the World (for arguments sake, we all know how seriously those two take the truth) decide to trash your reputation falsely, it is up to you to complain to the Press Complaints Commission which is run by the newspapers. If they decide their chums are in the right you can then go to court at your own expense. If you can’t afford it that’s too bad.
This is clearly wrong, and goes a long way to explaining why journalists have such a bad image.
There should also be some discernment as to what is "in the public’s interest" as it is not the same thing as "what the public is interested in". Sections of the public may well be interested in what Max Mosely gets up to in his private life but so long as he is not breaking the law, harming anyone, or being hypocritical then it is none of the public’s business, however odious others may find him.
The press shouldn’t have the freedom to say whatever they want, nor should every word be censured. They should be able to report issues of concern to the public and to express opinion clearly stated as such free from political or financial influence. When they get it wrong they should be obliged to put it right.