I play an online game called Worldle. The concept is that a silhouette of a country is shown and I have to guess the country. It then goes through a series of other questions like flag, languages etc. at the end a link to the country on Wiki is provided in case I want to read it. Today was Sierra Leone. I have a look on the Wiki page and one of the links was to the World Press Freedom Index which shows how ‘free’ the press are in the country. I had a look, expecting the two countries that I’m interested in, the UK and Australia, to be up at the top somewhere. It turns out that they’re not. The UK ranks 23rd whilst Australia ranks even lower at 39. Both countries are in the ‘Satisfactory’ category. Interestingly, the USA ranks at 55, placing it in the ‘Problematic’ category. In all three examples, where those countries could be held as examples of democracy and free speech, it appears that they’re not and there are former Eastern Bloc countries that rank higher. Makes me wonder who controls the media really. Anyway, link below if anyone is interested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
The billionaires control the media and we are spoon fed shìte. You only have to look at the crap that is reported about Gaza and the sucking up to Israel to get the picture.
Freedom of the Press relates to the extent that there is governmental control (or interference) over the press. It has nothing to do with who owns the media. To some extent, you need some government control over such things to protect against leaks of sensitive information and to protect against unhinged billionaires buying media platforms and spouting rubbish. I'd consider a ranking of 'satisfactory' to be quite a healthy one. Most of the countries ranked in the 'good' category don't have the same status on the World stage as the UK and other European countries that also fall into the 'satisfactory' category.
Difficult topic. I'd question which country's come first in that list and see how it's working out for them before judging too conclusively. But as a journalist for a regional newspaper I would say a completely free press is not a good thing at all. I would say that would be the press of an anarchist state. It would likely be a rabid free for all in which everyone is constantly just gnawing off each other's ballsacks for clicks. Some responsibility and regulation is a good thing.
Brexit was the last straw for me and the last time I took any notice of the press. No one had a clue about Brexit, how it would affect us and what the real issues were ... ... but the press had to pretend they knew all the facts and who was right. As it turns out they had no more idea than the rest of us and it was total guesswork. All these years later we've still no idea wtf is going on and when all those massive benefits would arrive. Yet the press, of course, will never admit they're clueless. It's an easy response to say 'Ah yes but that's what they want you to think' at which point any debate becomes pointless. Some people will always reply with 'You should do some research mate, the truth is out there' ... ... in reality their 'research' is reading stuff posted by some conspiracy theorist in his mam's back bedroom. I'll stick to ignoring as much of what's happening as possible.
The BBC is an establishment media outlet and a breeding ground for peados . https://www.counterfire.org/article/eight-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-bbc/
Pretty much what social media has become. Memes, simplistic statements, hyperbole, playing to the gantry and getting people wound up and playing on their biased, the more clicks and likes the better. Things turn into echo chambers with half truths and lies spouted and no opposite views listened to, just gang up and shout down or float that your side "owned" the opposition.
Yeah, freedom to lie, freedom to be incorrect, freedom to ignore science and expertise in favour of self-led "research. Freedom of speech can be a pretty troubling thing.
Obviously, any self proclaimed "revolutionary socialist" organisation is going to be a well balanced source.
Interesting statement, mate. My initial reaction was that if there is a responsibility attached it isn't genuinely free speech. I asked A.I for a summary of both sides of that argument. As with most things...compelling points on either side depending on your mood/motivation. Prompt - "Freedom of speech is a right. Like every right, it comes with a corresponding responsibility." Expand on this statement. A.I - This statement highlights the idea that freedom of speech, while essential and protected as a fundamental right, is not an absolute freedom to say anything without consequence. Just as with other rights, the exercise of freedom of speech carries an inherent responsibility to consider how our words may impact others, the public order, or social harmony. In essence, while everyone has the right to express their thoughts, this right does not excuse harmful, false, or inciting speech that could lead to violence, discrimination, or other negative consequences. It’s a reminder that true freedom of speech exists within a framework of accountability, where individuals are responsible for the potential outcomes of what they say. Balancing the right to speak freely with the duty to respect others and maintain social responsibility can be challenging, but it’s essential in a society that values both freedom and mutual respect. Prompt - Make the counter argument. A.I - The opposing argument would suggest that freedom of speech should be an absolute right without the burden of responsibility or restriction, because any limitation on speech, however well-intentioned, risks eroding the very foundation of that freedom. This perspective argues that the power of free expression lies in its unconditional nature, allowing individuals to voice unpopular, controversial, or challenging ideas without fear of censorship or retribution. From this view, placing a responsibility or limitation on speech can lead to subjective interpretations of what is “responsible” or “acceptable,” which can be exploited by those in power to silence dissenting voices or control public discourse. Absolute freedom of speech is seen as essential for a healthy democracy, where ideas can be freely debated, and truth can emerge from an open exchange of opinions. Therefore, this argument holds that the right to speak freely should be protected unconditionally, as any restrictions could stifle creativity, prevent social progress, and ultimately undermine individual autonomy and democratic ideals.
Interesting. Glad you posted that, for a number of reasons. I'd have said that it's a fundamental truth that every right comes with some kind of responsibility attached. What I find interesting is that AI doesn't appear to me to have identified what the responsibility attached to freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech certainly means that you can say things that other people don't want to hear, in my opinion. The corresponding responsibility should be that you only say things that are true.
I agree with you on that, but I'd also expand it slightly, you have the right to free speech, but you have the responsibility to say what is true and if you are saying something or holding a challenging viewpoint that you can back it up with facts in a reasonable way and not just say something to be deliberately offensive to anyone who doesn't share your views. In the end it boils down to this, you have the right to free speech, but not the right to shout "fire" at the top of your voice in a crowded theatre and cause a panic if it isn't true.
That's a pretty big problem with freedom of speech without conditions. It's also freedom of lying. Which is just immoral and wrong however you cut it.
Do you disagree that the BBC is a hot bed of nonces and drip feeds news and the credibility of what that article states ? Communist or not
When I first moved to Thailand, I would spend 45 minutes reading a couple of on line newspapers on a morning, now it takes me about 10 minutes, as there is often very little news, just someones opinion. But their opinion becomes news, being shared by the many readers of that NEWSpaper. The articles embellish the views of the reporter, it is never a balanced view. the same can be said about the BBC. It used to report with a balnced report not the biased rubbish that we get now1
