|
|
|
|
|
|
by vezzy-fnord
3914 days ago
|
|
|
Again, speech, press and privacy protections are orthogonal to a democratic process. People forget, but the United States had strict censorship codes for all of the television, film and comic book industries (respectively - Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters, Hays Code and Comics Code Authority) entrenched for decades, by lobbyists and powerful trade associations. Then the Fairness Doctrine for radio broadcasts, without the repeal of which talk radio would have never flourished (I'll admit a mixed blessing, but important for free speech). Our freedom of speech is actually greater now than it ever was, but to little avail. |
|
|
It is but it's orthogonal to avail. ;) The freedoms are necessary, the press part has to be solid, and the people have to take action. The press and action are the problems. Freedoms are doing their job of producing opportunities, which I act on regularly.
"People forget, but the United States had strict censorship codes for all of the television, film and comic book industries"
And through the democratic process these were fought and freedoms expanded. This is less likely to work in a monarchy, communist state, theocracy, or dictatorship. That the people's input matters and with bloodless avenues of it creating change is a pre-requisite to major reforms benefiting the people without full-on revolt. So, what systems and countries are you talking about where people did similar stuff within their system while dissident speech, publishing, and organizations were all illegal?
Note: Let's add voting integrity to the list of pre-requisites. The ability to speak about or publish the problems would be a pre-requisite to accountability. If you didn't have that, then privacy in property or communications would help you get word out discretely. Without any of the three, situation starts to sound like like certain South American and Asian countries.