From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 21:25:19 MDT
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:17 AM David Lubkin
lubkin@unreasonable.com wrote:
> Of course, a suitable mechanism must exist for reviewing any actions.
And
> any personnel who abuse their authority to block, arrest, or harm
reporters
> must be punished very harshly.
>
> Checks and balances. For both officials and press.
The problem here, and pretty much the reason to have a First Amendment,
is because any checks and balances on the media are going to be enforced
by... The government! I'd rather have reporters getting in the way and
put up with that nuisance than with governments having a free hand to do
what they want and then give press conferences afterward to tell us how
they did the right thing and fought the good fight. That sort of lapdog
media is what totalitarian regimes have and what almost all
nontotalitarian regimes aspire to.
I'm surprised how the September 11th attacks have turned so many people
against freedom, making them favor increase government power. Maybe I
shouldn't be surprised. Maybe those people were just silent all along
or they were just latent statists. After all, the groundwork for
tyranny has been in place for decades. I guess now the superstructure
is being erected. Orwell was only off by a few years...
Later!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:21 MST