Amnesty International -Taking on the sins of the world

[Lord of the Abyss]

Free Press != Responsible press though - sensational reporting can cause quite a lot of damage if it results in the incitement of (admittedly preexising) unrest. Like some of the other rights enumerated here, a free press is a luxury best reserved for nations have have already achieved a certain level of social and political maturity.

And what makes you think you are likely to get "social and political maturity" without one ?

The fact is, in the real world we see plenty of countries with all the "necessary" forms of oppression we see in this thread; they are called dictatorships. And they don't start to improve until those bonds are thrown off. If some government sets up the rule that "We'll let you have a free press when you're ready", it's guaranteed that the people will never be "ready".

[PeZook]

The only time when you can justify censorship is war, IMHO. Besides, people can live without free press: I think that matters which are of the most concern here are things like arbitrary arrests, degrading and humilitating treatment, denial of freedom of movement, assembly and religion, confiscation of property, etc.

Let's be honest here: some human rights are more essential than others, and some violations are thus more justifiable than others (under certain conditions).

[Tiriol]

The only time when you can justify censorship is war, IMHO. Besides, people can live without free press: I think that matters which are of the most concern here are things like arbitrary arrests, degrading and humilitating treatment, denial of freedom of movement, assembly and religion, confiscation of property, etc.

Let's be honest here: some human rights are more essential than others, and some violations are thus more justifiable than others (under certain conditions).

The problem with the lack of free press is that it very much limits the freedom of speech, because without free press (or free media) it becomes nigh impossible to have one's opinion heard beyond one's own social circles, thus reducing all criticism of the established hierarchy. In fact, without free press many other violations of human and basic rights can be swept under the curtain without anyone knowing about them. While we cannot directly equate free press to freedom of speech, they have a lot of overlap and "reducing" one also diminishes the other.

[Darth Wong]

Free Press != Responsible press though - sensational reporting can cause quite a lot of damage if it results in the incitement of (admittedly preexising) unrest. Like some of the other rights enumerated here, a free press is a luxury best reserved for nations have have already achieved a certain level of social and political maturity.

And what makes you think you are likely to get "social and political maturity" without one ?

The fact is, in the real world we see plenty of countries with all the "necessary" forms of oppression we see in this thread; they are called dictatorships. And they don't start to improve until those bonds are thrown off. If some government sets up the rule that "We'll let you have a free press when you're ready", it's guaranteed that the people will never be "ready".

And what if revolutions to overthrow such dictatorships have a historical batting average well below .500 for establishing anything better instead of simply killing huge numbers of people, disrupting economies, and replacing one kind of tyrant or tyranny for another?

The ideal scenario to shift from dictatorship to free society is one where the population is generally educated and industrialized already. If you free an ignorant, agrarian society from a tyrant, I doubt the results will be good.

[PeZook]

The problem with the lack of free press is that it very much limits the freedom of speech, because without free press (or free media) it becomes nigh impossible to have one's opinion heard beyond one's own social circles, thus reducing all criticism of the established hierarchy. In fact, without free press many other violations of human and basic rights can be swept under the curtain without anyone knowing about them. While we cannot directly equate free press to freedom of speech, they have a lot of overlap and "reducing" one also diminishes the other.

Yes, and effects of a free press are generally beneficial, even in dictatorships, hence why it's hard to justify having tight censorship. On the other hand, the Soviet Union has somehow managed to survive seventy years with very little free press outside of non-political media. It's actually a decent example of what we're talking about: the country was just fine for several generations, and it was only after the people were safe, economically secure and fed that they started demanding more say in government. Clearly, some human rights are valued more than others by the very people they concern.

Incidentally, the fact your people will demand safety first is why it's so freakin' easy to take away their rights during a crisis. Patriot act, anyone?

Take note that I'm not trying to justify abuse going on currently, I'm just arguing that a lot of human rights we take for granted do not, in fact, automatically lead to a better society. Free press, freedom of assembly and religion, for example, are completely worthless without order and food.

[Tiriol]

The problem with the lack of free press is that it very much limits the freedom of speech, because without free press (or free media) it becomes nigh impossible to have one's opinion heard beyond one's own social circles, thus reducing all criticism of the established hierarchy. In fact, without free press many other violations of human and basic rights can be swept under the curtain without anyone knowing about them. While we cannot directly equate free press to freedom of speech, they have a lot of overlap and "reducing" one also diminishes the other.

Yes, and effects of a free press are generally beneficial, even in dictatorships, hence why it's hard to justify having tight censorship. On the other hand, the Soviet Union has somehow managed to survive seventy years with very little free press outside of non-political media. It's actually a decent example of what we're talking about: the country was just fine for several generations, and it was only after the people were safe, economically secure and fed that they started demanding more say in government. Clearly, some human rights are valued more than others by the very people they concern.

Incidentally, the fact your people will demand safety first is why it's so freakin' easy to take away their rights during a crisis. Patriot act, anyone?

Take note that I'm not trying to justify abuse going on currently, I'm just arguing that a lot of human rights we take for granted do not, in fact, automatically lead to a better society. Free press, freedom of assembly and religion, for example, are completely worthless without order and food.

I do hope that nobody actually got the impression that you would advocate taking away people's rights or that you'd be justifying the abuses currently going on in this world; I certainly didn't receive that impression.

The current legal philosophy concerning human rights does recognize your point: it's pretty hard to care about freedom of speech if you don't have anything left to eat, for example (and the classical Marslow's hierarchy of needs actually supports this; the more celebral needs become more pronounced only when the bodily and social needs - eating, safety etc. - are met). However, those needs and rights (often called economical, social and educational rights) more often than not also require the various liberties and "classical" rights (freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.) to work adequately (for example: it's hard to bring a governmental attention to a possible misdeed or problem if you cannot express yourself freely; and building social networks can be tricky if the freedom of assembly has been revoked). The various human rights usually "need" each other to function properly (I say usually, since there has been cases where this has not been so). Take away one such right and it may (and probably will) affect the others negatively. This is one of the reasons why the European Human Rights Treaty specifically states that it is forbidden to place so many limitations or restrictions upon the rights covered in the treaty that the core essence of the right in question would be rendered null and void.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The ideal scenario to shift from dictatorship to free society is one where the population is generally educated and industrialized already. If you free an ignorant, agrarian society from a tyrant, I doubt the results will be good.

Some populations, despite being educated, are extremely conservative, especially Asian ones. However well educated they are, some even openly supported oppression and less freedom of press. Sadly, Ray is proof of that, and so was America when the Patriot Act was trotted out.

Free Press != Responsible press though - sensational reporting can cause quite a lot of damage if it results in the incitement of (admittedly preexising) unrest. Like some of the other rights enumerated here, a free press is a luxury best reserved for nations have have already achieved a certain level of social and political maturity.

Not that I necessarily agree that a muzzled government controlled press is a good thing, mind.

Sensationalism is a problem with any press. The problem is that there must be responsible voices out there who will openly rebut sensationalism. Even government controlled press is prone to sensationalism and that is the worst.

[AniThyng]

Why? All you need is good regulation.

While we're at it, we'll need a reliable judiciary too. And one man's regulation is another's despicable censorship...

The fact is, in the real world we see plenty of countries with all the "necessary" forms of oppression we see in this thread; they are called dictatorships. And they don't start to improve until those bonds are thrown off. If some government sets up the rule that "We'll let you have a free press when you're ready", it's guaranteed that the people will never be "ready".

Dictatorships != authoritarian states, there are degrees of this sort of thing. I live in one, yet here I am.

The only time when you can justify censorship is war, IMHO. Besides, people can live without free press: I think that matters which are of the most concern here are things like arbitrary arrests, degrading and humilitating treatment, denial of freedom of movement, assembly and religion, confiscation of property, etc.

Let's be honest here: some human rights are more essential than others, and some violations are thus more justifiable than others (under certain conditions).

Many authoritarian governments do strive to provide a decent standard of living and healthcare for thier people - things that matter far more IMO. In some cases, I would note that in some cases, (see: The American South, 1960's), it took what would seem like a very Statist act to actually force positive social change. And it is not like we (in the 3rd world) are not aware of what is wrong with arbitrary arrests and degrading and humiliating treatment etc - see the protests against guantanomo and iraq etc - governments might encourage the anti-US sentiment to distract from internal problems, but that doesn't mean the sentiment isn't real.

The ideal scenario to shift from dictatorship to free society is one where the population is generally educated and industrialized already. If you free an ignorant, agrarian society from a tyrant, I doubt the results will be good.

Hasn't this happened often enough in Africa...?

Sensationalism is a problem with any press. The problem is that there must be responsible voices out there who will openly rebut sensationalism. Even government controlled press is prone to sensationalism and that is the worst.

I agree with you to a degree. Now I read both government media and opposition/independent media, and while the government media likes to twist the truth, opposition media, being a mixed bag tends to utterly break it about as often as it tells the truth, and is prone to the worst sort of conspiracy theory-ism. You *need* to be critical and educated to judge the it.

Some populations, despite being educated, are extremely conservative, especially Asian ones. However well educated they are, some even openly supported oppression and less freedom of press. Sadly, Ray is proof of that, and so was America when the Patriot Act was trotted out.

Ultimately though, you'll only get less oppression and a freerer press when the society has a critical mass of people who want it. Asian governments (the moderately sucessfull ones at least) are not totally stupid or uncaring - they play the balancing act, letting people vent just enough to keep the pressure low.

As a side note though - let us look at Testing, and compare it to the forums where heavy moderation is enforced...

[Axis Kast]

According to Jack Snyder, who illustrates the correlations with some tidy statistics, democratizing nations are more war-prone during the first five to ten years after the "yoke" has been thrown off than countries in which the political system has not recently been in flux. The same, incidentally, is true for those nations which are autocracizing.

Looking at the whole literature from the 50,000-foot level, this democratic "war dividend" stems from a variety of factors, including general uncertainty, the probable absence of a regulated press that can ensure truth-in-reporting, the likelihood that group histories remain for the large part antagonistic, the immature character of national politics at the highest level, and the fact that some groups once privileged under the old regime now stand to lose quite a lot, prompting them to mobilize whatever resources they have remaining in order to secure their interests, which will sometimes seem (or be) existential.

In these situations, one finds that democracy is more like mob rule than not. Meanwhile, the press can rarely serve as an inhibitor on government action due to its own partisanship. Those who share power are likely to engage in a dangerous form of satisficing known as "log-rolling," in which everyone "trades up" on their favorite issue by permitting other political coalitions to pursue their own pet policy. In a situation where nobody holds the decisive balance of power, this tends to allow a lot of room for military aggression.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Dictatorships != authoritarian states, there are degrees of this sort of thing. I live in one, yet here I am.

Actually, no. A dictatorship is a subset of an authoritarian state. And just because it's a dictatorship doesn't mean there is no access to the internet. Myanmar is a dictatorship, a junta at that, and it used to have pretty free internet, then they used equipment they bought from *cough* *cough* to censor and block a lot of it.

I agree with you to a degree. Now I read both government media and opposition/independent media, and while the government media likes to twist the truth, opposition media, being a mixed bag tends to utterly break it about as often as it tells the truth, and is prone to the worst sort of conspiracy theory-ism. You *need* to be critical and educated to judge the it.

Just about any press has an agenda. What is new?

Ultimately though, you'll only get less oppression and a freerer press when the society has a critical mass of people who want it. Asian governments (the moderately sucessfull ones at least) are not totally stupid or uncaring - they play the balancing act, letting people vent just enough to keep the pressure low.

Everyone wants to hear what they would like to hear..............

[ray245]

Some populations, despite being educated, are extremely conservative, especially Asian ones. However well educated they are, some even openly supported oppression and less freedom of press. Sadly, Ray is proof of that, and so was America when the Patriot Act was trotted out.

Well, for now, my view is that while certain human rights limits is somewhat acceptable for a developing nation that is pushing for greater economic prosperity, it is not acceptable for a sufficiently well-developed nation to reject any human rights.

In Singapore, I view that there is a need for more freedom of press as opposed to lesser by the way. Nor would I agree the patriot act should be passed in the US.

Afterall, greater call for human rights doesn't happen overnight, and it requires a few generation of people to be more exposed to liberal ideas. Bear in mind that even in the case of Singapore, the younger generation is much more liberal than the older generation.

Asking for a conservative nation to become liberal in a short amount of time is unrealistic and idealistic in my opinion, but it doesn't mean the push for a more liberal view should stop.

I'm just taking a utilitarian approach towards viewing things like free speech and etc. If it is able to bring more benefit to the nation, go ahead, if it doesn't, then maybe it is a bad idea to do so.

Okay...can anyone point out to me when exactly free press has resulted in the destruction of a country?

The fall of the USSR?


Bear in mind that I'm not against human rights per say, but the pace of movement towards issues like more free speech and more free press.

There has yet to be any cases of a authoritarian nation becoming a liberal nation outright, and most attempts to do so in a rapid manner has yet to yield good results from what I can see.

Not all nation has a stable government that can actually impose its laws over the entire nation. If a relatively disunited nation requires more progress, then it might be acceptable to keep outright criticism of the government to a low level.

[PeZook]

The fall of the USSR?

That's a ridiculous oversimplification.

[K. A. Pital]

Many of the so-called "human rights" depend on economic situation far more than they do on any legal writ.

So what if the Constitution of African Nation X promises freedom of speech, assembly and press? It's irrelevant. The nation is so poor, and the order is in such a bad condition, that whatever "rights" the citizens have by law, they have no impact on their daily life.

Most nations with at least a somewhat decent human rights system are already industrialized. Agrarian and poor nations never have good human rights systems, and freedom of press in such nations does not improve the lives of it's citizens. Hell, freedom of press here in Russia hasn't at all improved the lives of our citizens, even though I consider it important as a gauge on social problems.

The problem is that reporting a problem and solving it is not automatically correlated. There's so many economic problems and social problems, crime and various evils that the press may report on daily, but it wouldn't lead to anything if the government and society both are not motivated to solve these problems at least somewhat decisively. Passive information flow from the press has zero, I'd even say absolute zero influence on the life level in a nation.

[ray245]

The fall of the USSR?

That's a ridiculous oversimplification.

Well isn't it still one of the many reason that result in the fall of the USSR?

[K. A. Pital]

Well isn't it still one of the many reason that result in the fall of the USSR?

Hardly. The instability and utter greed and callousness of the upper Party ranks, who were quite unlike their Chinese technocratic colleagues, ready to destroy the nation in exchange for personal prosperity, did more for the USSR's collapse than all free press combined.

After 5 years of Perestroika where the free press vindictively assailed every aspect and flaw of the Soviet society, lambasted "communist tyranny" and prepared people for a "market transition", most people still voted to preserve the USSR (at least in the slavic regions of the Union) - and dismantling the USSR was not done via a popular vote but via a covert treaty between republican leaders - which still later backfired in the 1993 violence.

So, basically, free press had little to do with it. Neither would I really name the oligarch-controlled press "free" - I can't really understand how state censorship is different from "gray cardinal" censorship...

[PeZook]

Well isn't it still one of the many reason that result in the fall of the USSR?

...

That's like saying the October Revolution was caused by people liking red a lot. How does abolishing censorship lead to economic and social collapse? A case can be made that the pyerestroyka may have led to the dissolution of the USSR by awakening some nationalist sentiments, but not the horrible collapse thereafter, which is really what "the fall" was all about.

EDIT: Damn! Stas beat me to it

[ray245]

Well isn't it still one of the many reason that result in the fall of the USSR?

...

That's like saying the October Revolution was caused by people liking red a lot. How does abolishing censorship lead to economic and social collapse? A case can be made that the pyerestroyka may have led to the dissolution of the USSR by awakening some nationalist sentiments, but not the horrible collapse thereafter, which is really what "the fall" was all about.

EDIT: Damn! Stas beat me to it

Ah, I'm talking about the dissolution of the USSR when I was talking about "the fall".

[K. A. Pital]

Free press was marginal there. Also note that China's current information space, especially with the internet, is far more free than the information space of the USSR. However, China hasn't collapsed upon itself.

Free press can't cause a nation-state to collapse. That would be the fault of it's government if anything.

[PeZook]

Ah, I'm talking about the dissolution of the USSR when I was talking about "the fall".

Well, I said "a case can be made", not "it's an indisputable fact", too.

[ray245]

Free press was marginal there. Also note that China's current information space, especially with the internet, is far more free than the information space of the USSR. However, China hasn't collapsed upon itself.

Free press can't cause a nation-state to collapse. That would be the fault of it's government if anything.

Guess I mess up in terms of understanding how free press correlates to the stability of a nation and how the USSR collapse.

Still, I guess it can be argued that economic prosperity leads to greater respect towards human rights from what you are saying as opposed to the other way around(like how Amnesty International views human rights issues) .

[K. A. Pital]

That's certainly true. However, it's a dangerous tendency to ignore the question of your rights system after you established prosperity.

If you already reached the level of a second world nation with a stable government and more or less functioning industrial economy, you should modernize the social structures as well. Generally, the human rights system markedly improves with the rising life level, but if it doesn't, the state can face disastrous consequences such as people's apathy, loss of confidence (or even a vote of no confidence if it already allows people's voting power in some fashion).

The problems of progress can be solved before the problems of human rights, but the human rights will inevitably surface once again after prosperity and stability have been reached. Arguably, this is a more correct description of what happened in the USSR in the 1980s, and is somewhat happening in China now.

If the government neglects updating it's legal code and only focuses on the economy, that might well backfire. Examples of such backfires are well known. And not just in the second world - think of the USA and it's racial prejudice, and the 1960s? This was a rather painful human rights upgrade, and if the government continued to neglect it, the whole situation could've boiled over in massive violence.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, for now, my view is that while certain human rights limits is somewhat acceptable for a developing nation that is pushing for greater economic prosperity, it is not acceptable for a sufficiently well-developed nation to reject any human rights.

In Singapore, I view that there is a need for more freedom of press as opposed to lesser by the way. Nor would I agree the patriot act should be passed in the US.

Afterall, greater call for human rights doesn't happen overnight, and it requires a few generation of people to be more exposed to liberal ideas. Bear in mind that even in the case of Singapore, the younger generation is much more liberal than the older generation.

Asking for a conservative nation to become liberal in a short amount of time is unrealistic and idealistic in my opinion, but it doesn't mean the push for a more liberal view should stop.

I'm just taking a utilitarian approach towards viewing things like free speech and etc. If it is able to bring more benefit to the nation, go ahead, if it doesn't, then maybe it is a bad idea to do so.

No in general, most Singaporeans don't give a shit. Especially if the Straits Times is still considered as "widely read". How anyone can take in that shit piece of newspaper which I consider completely unreadable and simply helps to sustain people's ignorance is beyond me. Most of the people in my generation are more focused on making a living instead of doing anything about anything around them. So what if human rights or if there is free press? There are plenty who would rather just bitch and moan than know the full truth. Just as racist policies do exist in the armed forces, is so clear to everyone, yet none of the Malays or even Indians bitch about it. "Ignorance is bliss" is given a whole new meaning.

[ray245]

Well, for now, my view is that while certain human rights limits is somewhat acceptable for a developing nation that is pushing for greater economic prosperity, it is not acceptable for a sufficiently well-developed nation to reject any human rights.

In Singapore, I view that there is a need for more freedom of press as opposed to lesser by the way. Nor would I agree the patriot act should be passed in the US.

Afterall, greater call for human rights doesn't happen overnight, and it requires a few generation of people to be more exposed to liberal ideas. Bear in mind that even in the case of Singapore, the younger generation is much more liberal than the older generation.

Asking for a conservative nation to become liberal in a short amount of time is unrealistic and idealistic in my opinion, but it doesn't mean the push for a more liberal view should stop.

I'm just taking a utilitarian approach towards viewing things like free speech and etc. If it is able to bring more benefit to the nation, go ahead, if it doesn't, then maybe it is a bad idea to do so.

No in general, most Singaporeans don't give a shit. Especially if the Straits Times is still considered as "widely read". How anyone can take in that shit piece of newspaper which I consider completely unreadable and simply helps to sustain people's ignorance is beyond me. Most of the people in my generation are more focused on making a living instead of doing anything about anything around them. So what if human rights or if there is free press? There are plenty who would rather just bitch and moan than know the full truth. Just as racist policies do exist in the armed forces, is so clear to everyone, yet none of the Malays or even Indians bitch about it. "Ignorance is bliss" is given a whole new meaning.

Well, has you ever considered that no other newspapers industries exist in Singapore, and the fact it that the only major English newspaper that people can buy from news-stand? Even in the US, most people would still rely on major news network for news as opposed to some political blog. Hell, the ones that is keen on reading political blogs would be the younger generation as well.

For one, the younger generation is more tolerant towards ideas like the acceptance of homosexuals in society than the older generation from my personal experience. It seems to me that you are just saying that unless more Singaporeans are activist, they aren't liberal or doing anything.

Moreover, the PAP is good at controlling dissent, and gives the general public some sort of feedback avenue. Even then, a free press is useless if there is no competition among them, each giving their own differing opinions.

[ray245]

Add(ran out of edit time) :

From what I understand, activism on a large scale only occurs when people's state of living are seriously affected in a negative manner by the government. Even then a human rights protest or activism is often on a smaller scale than people demanding government trying to raise their standards of living and etc.

It can be said that Singaporeans standard of living is still quite high here for people to be actively involved in politics.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, has you ever considered that no other newspapers industries exist in Singapore, and the fact it that the only major English newspaper that people can buy from news-stand? Even in the US, most people would still rely on major news network for news as opposed to some political blog. Hell, the ones that is keen on reading political blogs would be the younger generation as well.

What the fuck are you talking about? That's because the Singapore Government probably refuses to give any licenses out. And the last time any of the local press showed independent thought, it resulted in the firing of the editor. So which editor would? NEvermind that some of the writers at the Straits TImes were former ISB people.

For one, the younger generation is more tolerant towards ideas like the acceptance of homosexuals in society than the older generation from my personal experience. It seems to me that you are just saying that unless more Singaporeans are activist, they aren't liberal or doing anything.

Moreover, the PAP is good at controlling dissent, and gives the general public some sort of feedback avenue. Even then, a free press is useless if there is no competition among them, each giving their own differing opinions.

Bah. Even if the younger generation have a more tolerant attitude, they give a rat's ass about change, never mind the fundie Christians that exist in many corners of the state.