Popular Topics

Internet Usage to Promote a Healthy Lifestyle

Censorship
Thus, liberation may be seen in the desire of most people to be free to pursue their own goals and life plans—which may involve a reliance upon standards and objectives that are solely their own. And then he takes the word of Putin, who doesn't even allow the existence of real never mind investigative journalism in his own country You are, I'm afraid, completely wrong about the BBC. If you work for long hours, Raynor Ergohuman chair can be your best option. And I'm not a proponent of tv shows. The chemical is also known for boosting metabolism of fat acids in the liver. I was looking to add to my rss feeds that I skim through everyday.

The status of "individuality”

Anti-censorship page

Here, let me help Article headline. Then lists google for example, I am not going to explain every news source for you, do your own homework , and that has. So where is his explanation about Google? In fact not only he is defending and promoting them, he does not see to be aware that they announced they will filter news. Now added to the fact that Eric Schmidt is a liberal activist and was on the Hillary Clinton campaign, that makes them not credible.

Next time, before you accuse others of not reading the article, try reading the article yourself and after that do some research, you'll avoid looking uninformed like this. As a user of Google news for some time I have noticed the profound difference between the sources that used to be included in any politically important news events and the very restricted sources that Goog News now deems to be appropriate news sources. Remember that Snowden disclosed that Goog is a "partner" with the NSA and as such not only tracks and archives who you are but what you are interested in.

Everyone in the comments are just saying every news site ever is bias lol. Seems like everyone just has a subjective viewpoint. Thank you for the suggestion. I was thinking the same thing. We both know that perpetual critics with no original thought of their own will reply. If we had a darned source do you think we would be searching for one???? You are just as gullible as the rest of the imbeciles who go marching off to death camps, all the while singing, "Oh What A Beautiful Morning! Another honorable mention is The Economist.

It is not exactly balanced reporting but it is intelligent, comprehensive, and pathologically fair about most issues. He could have said it better, but he is right. Anyone who was paying close attention to them know for fact their are a leftist cesspool.

FU for being what you espouse as objective. Did this article just get censored? Because yesterday the 5 sites mentioned were: Independent Media Center 4. World News Network www. It actually had many more than that. If you look at the bottom of the article you'll see that the article was originally written in , and updated this year to make it more accurate.

I was the original author, and the one who updated it. I'm afraid most of the original sites listed were far too left-leaning to be considered completely unbiased. The ones listed now are at least, a majority of the time, in the center and generally publish fair and balanced news. So according to this guy, Ryan Dube, the Wall Street Journal, owned by News Corp the parent company of Fox News and owned by Rupert Murdoch is "unbiased," National Public Radio, meanwhile, is an organization run by a public board, receives funding from multiple Government and Private sources, and I know this because I have a good friend who is an NPR producer at the state station level reporters are not allowed to endorse or campaign for a candidate privately, even to the point of being banned from putting up a yard sign at their home.

But NPR is biased because Mr. Dube "thought" he heard bias during the campaign? There were numerous broadcasts about rural voter interests, taking to Trump supporters as well as Hillary supporters. I find it baffling that he talks about bias due to corporate ownership and then completely ignores NewsCorp and WSJ's conservative slant. You are less likely to hear bias if you share a similar bias.

I've listened to NPR for twenty years, and for the first fifteen thought it was extremely unbiased, but over the last five years I have tuned my perception to hear outrageous bias. I still listen to the NPR a lot, but it's definitely not the experience I remember having fifteen years ago. So bias is good as long as you agree with it. Oh, and you are another liberal with Fox News derangement syndrome. I just heard a story about illegal immigrants who have applied for asylum, but were rejected.

They must have called them "undocumented immigrants" a dozen times in a five minute span. They are not undocumented. If they applied for asylum, they have entire folders of documentation, but all of those are documentation that they are illegal immigrants. Why would they keep chanting "undocumented immigrants" which is blatantly inaccurate?

Obviously because NPR is on a mission to generate sympathy for them because they've taken a political position that we should allow all illegal immigrants who are here to stay here.

This is evidenced by the dozens and dozens of other stories about illegal immigrants on NPR. All of which paint a one-sided picture designed to sway opinion. That reflects extreme political bias.

But most people who feel similarly would not even recognize the bias. This is simply one subject. I would argue that every single story they represent is similarly biased, and that if you do not notice it, it's because you share that bias. You must have misunderstood. I actually have included NPR on this list of unbiased media sources, however did not place it on the primary list because of the slight bias revealed during the Democratic primaries.

But since that was a rarity, NPR remains on the list as a good source of generally fair and balanced journalism. Is the write implying that fake news only occurs when censorship is involved? They are two totally different subjects. Of course that makes for an easier reasoning of how fake news is determined.

Merely filter out the one involved in censorship. Of course that totally overlooks uncensored site and news sources that purposefully lie without censorship. This logic fails to explain what fake news is and how it is determined by sloughing it off on censorship as the source. Maybe free from censorship in the sense that one organization posts and another filters, but not free from the fake news of oligarchs wishing to sway public opinion based on something other than facts.

BBC is at the top of that list as the number one George Soros lapdog. AlterNet is very anti Trump and so am I. However, I wouldn't call AlterNet unbiased! I'm looking for a news source to show me both sides of every story. Unfortunately, I have yet to find such a news source.

Add to the list. I hear everyone griping and condemning that all these news sources are biased, but no one posting their unbiased sources. So, what sources do you think are unbiased news sources? Post links, or info the leads to those sources, and let's see what you've got, so it can be held up to scrutiny. Why not post your unbiased sources instead of just condemning and dismissing? The Independent is not in any way, shape or form independent.

It is a well known left-leaning liberal newspaper in the UK. It seems you were hoodwinked by the fact it had "independent" in it's name. From your list it's obvious you are left-leaning yourself so have chosen equally left-leaning news outlets like The Independent and Alternet because they fit your world view.

That's the opposite of being independent, it's dogmatic. Your simply reinforcing your own belief system. I read the entire article and was ready to trust this guy I gave your website a chance.

While in search of factual news, I learned that the first three articles I read were totally false. I am from the fourth planet in Alpha Centauri and must go elsewhere on Terra for the truth. I checked it out, almost every headline was anti Trump.

Not a single article on the crimes Hillary has committed and is committing. What crimes has Hilary committed? Was found no fault SIX times. Did she break the law when she researched socialist health care 20 years ago? Once you stop sniffing the liberal glue, you'd see her crimes. In fact, just even questioning that she is a criminal despite the FBI director himself called her a liar and a criminal yet refused to prosecute her because suddenly intent is a requirement to prosecute, for some reason shows either you missed all that, or are a brainwashed person, or are a pathological liar, like Hillary.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say you might have missed every news about her. But feel free to hang on straw argument, citing some conspiracy theory some idiots spreading on twitter as a proof of Hillary's hard to prove innocence. I was trying to find some real news and that site is as biased as all the main media. This site is stale as AlterNet has sold out. Independent seemed to be a pretty good site for world news.

At least in the articles I was reading. I'm going to give it a week to see how it goes. But the thing is, the left reports things that are actually and factually true much more often than the right. Just because you personally don't want to believe them and are basing your stance on emotion and opinion, doesn't mean the the news you're reading is wrong. Most news outlets are left leaning if not extreme left. The reason is the same reason education tends to be left leaning in that liberals are attracted to these vocations.

Conservatives tend to be attracted to other things like military careers, financial, etc. Go to any journalism school or college and it is almost entirely liberal. Certainly not this one. Here is a sample of your " actually and factually true" left reporting. Lewinsky" - Obama had a great economy. I can go on, but a web site on its own is barely enough to list the lies and deception that came from the left. The left is morally bankrupt and their leaders are dishonest to say the least.

No organization that claims "advocacy" for anything can be unbaised. My degree and work experience are in PR and media, and Alternet is not even close to "real" journalism. Remember, people under 50 equate journalism with advocacy. But they cannot exist in the same space.

Advocacy is what the editors and columnists do on the opinion page. It does not belong in the "real" news, if we even have that anywhere anymore. Alternet is complete crap. It is a far left leaning, Clinton loving, war pushing; mindless site. Why the hell would this be added to this list? No sign of unbiased reporting at all. Nothing to say about Friday's Wikileaks Podesta email dump. Also, no ability to search the site. I was excited to try out your recommended sites.

I'm sick of biased news "reporting. Right now they have at least 10 front page stories bombasting Trump and praising Hillary. Every political story on their front page is pro-Hillary and anti-GOP.

Where is the neutrality you were referring to? Here's something that ought to worry you more. It started long before during the Paul Martin government. Sam Harris, in your book "Free Will", you quote Joshua Komisarjevsky, a career criminal, as claiming to have been stunned by his own behavior and that he had not consciously intended to kill anyone.

As you've said 'such details might begin to give us pause'. In the Wikipedia biography of "Dr. Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado, a Spanish professor of physiology at Yale University, famed for his research on mind control through electrical stimulation of the brain", in Reference 9, "Delgado later learned he could duplicate the results he got with the stimoceiver without any implants at all, using only specific types of electromagnetic radiation interacting with the brain.

He lamented he didn't have access to the technology when General Franco of Spain was in power, as it would have allowed him to control the dictator at a distance". So are drones , and might have been responsible for the murders of the wife and dauhters of Dr. William Petit through Komisarjevsky guns don't kill people as they say. People kill people with guns as an experiment in mind control?

The Reference 9 has now been removed, perhaps because I have suffered much at their hands and they don't want me to show this to anyone else. No one especially the local police will believe me. I now wear an all-steel helmet which blocks or absorbs the EMR, though they attack other parts of my body not really effectively.

It's my head they want. They have been trying to kill me for 6 years now. They killed my wife in and 2 healthy dogs in by induced heart attacks. They contract the heart for long periods until you're dead. This is how Andrew Brietbart was murdered at first, a few minor attacks causing him to see his doctor about his heart, establishing a history, that established then the full force, and as a result he died. They do the same with the lower sphincture muscle of the intestine causing the feces to back up and you can't excrete, causing your health to deteriorate meanwhile, your breath stinks of feces.

If you're a diabetic on Insulin, regardless of how strict you follow the doctor's orders, you wake up to find your blood sugar reading sky-high. They attack the endocrine system, depleting your glands of their fluids. So, when you're really in a poor condition because your endocrine system no longer protects you, along comes the Trudeau Liberal government to offer you Doctor-Assisted Suicide and the doctors know nothing of what had been done to you. Canada's pensioners are living too long, costing, if they have long-term illnesses, too much.

So, the government saves a bundle on pension and healthcare costs. The banks control governments at every level in Canada Federal, Provincial and Municipal. Pehaps the Judiciary as well.

The banks own or control stockbrokerages. The pension funds do NOT. The banks have insider information on how well or poorly a company is doing financially. Guess who is going to be told to buy or sell what the banks or their wealthy clients want to sell or buy? I'm sure the same thing is happening in the US.

Israel's Mossud is also involved with the control of a genii that makes things appear and disappear as in Aesop's fable of the boy who cried wolf , money, documents, etc. But also prepare for the future in case were wrong. You need serious help by a medical professional. There's no shame getting the help, the shame is not getting it. Prayers and Blessings to you. You are pulling the same stunt as Scientology.

Selling the agenda in the form of railing against restricted freedoms. I came to your site with hope. Obviously the person who posted these news outlets as "unbiased" is profoundly stupid, for he doesn't seem to know what "unbiased" means;. Every sight listed here smacks of prejudice. What a rotten bit of luck. Bugger off Mr Dube who is likely smoking one.. The poster Tim is right. Alternet bans people all the time.

Years ago they used to be ok, not so much anymore. They have a bias in support of main stream issues. Sorry, but your list is not correct. Though new, the republic news is a great source of info.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but AlterNet censors all the time. I've been frequenting AlterNet since roughly, and I've been a very active commentator on the site, but just this morning I woke up to find my 12 year old account banned, and why?

Because I disagreed with an article having to do with girls giving blowjobs. Nor can you tell a woman what pleasure her or not. Dude, when you out yourself as news-ignorant in the very beginning of the article and then confirm said ignorance with claims like how news used to be journalism as if journalism used to be the main goal of major news.

And if you're NOT talking about mainstream news, then quality journalism is easier to find than ever. You just have to put forth some effort.

Sadly, it's clear that you haven't put forth nearly enough to be qualified to have a respected opinion. There's nothing wrong with learning, which you're in the process of. And kudos for finally taking the first step. But when you pass yourself as knowledgeable, you just come across as a 20 year old who is living in their own for the very first time and is talking about how they're a "real adult" now.

I don't mind you not including Young Turks. They're a quality outlet, tho with an obvious but overt bias. It hurts the brain. Again, I'm glad you've taken your first step. Just don't fool yourself into thinking it's something more than the first step. Seems that a lot of the commenters here have some serious issues. Nothing like insulting half of America just to make yourself feel better.

I would have thought that comments here to be more about vetting these suggested news sites for their non-biased and independent nature, not demonstrating your own bias. Let's stick to the subject matter here people and use facts and examples not vitriol.

Rn, Welcome to the new normal. I won't burn calories or brain cells responding to the negative comments. So I send you positive energy as you continue to feed your hunger for knowledge.

I love you for your humanity. Check out The Young Turks, they're very liberal so maybe not quite un-biased but they report the news as they are wether it favors their points of view or not and I must say they're refreshingly real and honest. Was hoping to get an honest assessment here so I could change my homepage on my browser.

So I checked out your favorite: One look at the page makes it obvious that it is not unbiased. Top 2 stories were about Bernie Sanders. Love him or hate him, Bernie Sanders does not warrant the top two positions on the page. Bottom position was Donald Trump with a headline asking if Donald Trump was inciting violence. Seems very clear which way this site leans.

I just want a site that reports facts, no opinions. Very disappointed that you likely have people believing this site in non-patial. I'm sick of thes "supposed" unbiased news outlets claiming independence from left or right leaning, especially if it's liberal progressive socialist psychos! Why, cause I'm a republican? You'd be wrong asshole to assume such a thing. Hey barb just wanted to let u know ur not alone. U seem like a great gal who deserves to know whats up.

Being Hispanic I can really appreciate freedom of speech, because Mexico we can't say jack. But America is a place where you can speak what want. You wouldn't be able to say what you said in Mexico. Don't act like a baboon, and criticize the country. Billy Cortez Obviously by the hash tags at the bottom of your post weed coke murica you've utterly wasted what little brain lower you had. Advice, there's a good reason they call them mind altering drugs.

Mark Zuchwnburg smokes hot tomalley. However I would presume that you believe that he is an idiot. I suppose only idiots socialize with you. In addition you are probably a bored housewife, who thinks that they know what is going on. In reality you haven't done anything meaningful in the real work to make any judgements that should be taken seriously. I just smoked you harder than Willie Nelson smokes weed.

I am in full agreement with you. Almost everything is agenda driven, and that agenda is always the left wing socialist, anti-American, Anti-God agenda. Homo-terrorists early on took control of the advertising and marketing industry, and nowadays, you cannot advertise without including someone who is stereotypically gay, nor can you get "A" movies released without including the same.

They were smart, in spite of the fact percentage wise they are a tiny percent of the US population, they have successfully given the appearance that they are a major part of our society. It is all smoke and mirrors.

MSM, and even so-called independent media outlets all support them whether it is because they want to or are forced to by the homo-terrorist machine. Speaking of gener warfare, feminists have been the driving force behind all the moral evils of our society. Homosexuality would still be illegal if it had not been for the feminist alliance. Barb Take a deep breath. Everything's gonna be fine. Just plop yourself on that couch and take in a few more hours of Fox News. The mission statements proclaim the "agenda" of these sites.

Unbiased news does not have an agenda. These are really left-wing biased news sites as specially Alter-Net and The Independent. Alternet is so far left it's nauseating. Totally out of touch with reality.

I read a couple of articles and read all the headlines. Every headline was a slam against the right and conservatives. One article I read was so shrill and anti conservative it was almost like satire but the writer was serious. This site can only appeal to the most radical of the left. And then the comments below the article were laughable.

So much anger and hate. I thought liberals were supposed to be so tolerant. Its truly laughable indeed if it weren't so despicable, right? News is not meant to codify your personal beliefs on social or moral issues And so they believe it when they see a story, a headline about someone or something that politically or religiously disagree with!

It is ridiculous and those arguments are beyond idiotic! If you find a news story on alternet or one of the others, that is factually wrong, and is a news story If you can only handle news that fits into your small, limited, narrow viewpoint The "cbc" canada said nor more critical aboriginal comments,The georgia straight. I also noticed going to a public computer to post with privacy and then same machine would be gone next time or conveniently broken Anony Mity I'm so sad for y'all.

Several of these sites, e. The Independent and TheRealNews, can only seem neutral to someone who is left leaning.

If you are looking for media sources that support an agenda, be it pro-indigenous people or pro-environment, or pro-capitalism, then you are not looking for unbiased news. You are looking for news which agrees with your world view. I want a news source that, for example, is not afraid to publish the names of the shooters in the San Bernadino attack on the social services agency.

It can report about the cache of guns the shooters had, but it will not try to turn it into a pro-gun control story. Readers are left to draw their own conclusions. The new source I am looking for will report what Obama or Trump said or did, but it will not lampoon them or glamorize them.

I am truly looking for UNbiased news. This list is not that I checked them out, and they're quite liberal-leaning. I think I even saw the terms crackpot and wingnut Not what I'm looking for. I have to agree about Alternet, it is so virulently far left that it is comical, and I'm a liberal Democrat.

Nothing but slanted bias pieces that usually start with a question like, "Are all GOP candidates secretly trying to destroy America? I'm giving up on media "news" outlets.

Issues I care about or support I will go right to the source or advocates. I just browsed AlterNet, it isn't independent, its completely one-sided left-wing biased as can be. It promoted the mass genocide of unborn children via Planned parenthood, and it calls itself "human rights advocates". Give me a break. Alternet is so left wing it's not even funny The front page is almost identical to Rawstory. However, it was on and off media scene since many years past. It's relatively without censorship thus far but gives a truer picture of Muslim world.

Why didn't you include BBC? Allow me to share another news on Chevy Cruze Reviews thanks you please dont remove I just wanna share! In order to have a complete perspective one must at least view the situation from multiply sides.

But most of all use logic. And while you are at it consider this "anything that divides one human from another is an enemy of all humans. I think calling these sites uncensored, is REALLY stretching it, after all, in my years of viewing so called news, the reporter has increasingly, injected an opinion of their own into the mix, so to me, it should be re-named the best 5 left winged sites.

How about some right winged ones, thanks. Ryan, I appreciate your attempt to provide alternate news feeds. Right and left are relative terms, very spicy. I think what you are after is better termed balanced news, and the only way to get that with the news sources we have today is to read both conventional and alternative sources.

I also appreciate your giving us examples of news sites that put less emphasis on north American pop culture. I have added your suggestions to my Google Reader feeds, knowing that now as I scan the headlines I will get a more rounded picture.

Thank you for your help. I don't think that there is a news media that is not censored, either internally or externally. The sources of censorship may be ideology, sponsorship, government, and so on. I have seen that on left and right news.

Objectivity, or lack of bias. Again, I don't think that any human being can be totally objective. The place where we grew up, our school, our nation, our parents, our genes, and so many things shape our minds, that full objectivity can be attempted, but not always achieved. I would prefer that media outlets came out and state their ideology, vision, philosophy, and self perceived mission in this word. But, alas, I don't think that any media outlet would like to say "we are here to satisfy our sponsors, Exxon Mobil and the oil industry, and show entertaining news.

Personally speaking, I am a centrist-leftist, but I am happy to read the right wing news media. Sometimes they make points that I would have never considered. Television and radio news, educational and entertainment after disgruntled callers on a live show on Al-Ikhbariya news channel displayed discontent with the latest governmental salary increases and made critical remarks of some Saudi officials. The minister of Culture and Information then fired the network's director, Muhammad Al-Tunsy, and replaced him with one of his personal assistants.

The minister also formed a censorship committee of which the approval would be required prior to airing any program or inviting any guests on national television stations. The legal status of satellite receivers is in something of a grey area. In , the government banned ownership of satellite television receivers but throughout the s, an increasingly large percentage of the population bought a satellite receiver and subscribed to various programming packages.

Despite the ban, the Saudi government was, generally, willing to tolerate satellite television as long as the programming content was not pornographic, critical of the Saudi government or Islam. In the s, the Saudi government launched its own satellite stations and expressed a desire to work with other governments in the region to develop common censorship guidelines and restrictions.

In , two episodes of American Dad! Part 1 and Part 2 , were banned by the Saudi government. The English daily ArabNews published an article that accused the series of "a particularly brutal portrayal of Saudis and Saudi Arabia"; although some of what was being shown, such as intolerance of homosexuality as well as the ban of alcohol, was true. As a result, the two-part episode was banned in Saudi Arabia, although the rest of the TV series itself can still be seen. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This article appears to contradict the article Television in Saudi Arabia. Please see discussion on the linked talk page. Learn how and when to remove this template message. Archived from the original on 16 January Retrieved 5 October Archived from the original on 23 March Retrieved 24 March Retrieved 4 September Archived from the original on 7 July Archived from the original on 7 August Archived from the original on 19 July Censorship, as a term in English, goes back to the office of censor established in Rome in bce.

That officer, who conducted the census, regulated the morals of the citizens counted and classified. But, however honourable the origins of its name, censorship itself is today generally regarded as a relic of an unenlightened and much more oppressive age.

Illustrative of this change in opinion is how a community responds to such a sentiment as that with which Protagoras c. About the gods I am not able to know either that they are, or that they are not, or what they are like in shape, the things preventing knowledge being many, such as the obscurity of the subject and that the life of man is short. Such statements would no doubt have been received with hostility, and probably with social if not even criminal sanctions, throughout the ancient world.

In most places in the modern world, on the other hand, such a statement could be made without the prospect of having to endure a pained and painful community response.

This change reflects, among other things, a profound shift in opinion as to what is and is not a legitimate concern of government. Whereas it could once be maintained that the law forbids whatever it does not permit, it is now generally accepted—at least wherever Western liberalism is in the ascendancy—that one may do whatever is not forbidden by law.

Furthermore, it is now believed that what may be properly forbidden by law is quite limited. Much is made of permitting people to do with their lives including their opinions as they please, so long as they do no immediate and evident usually physical harm to others. All this is to say that individualism is made much of in modernity. One critical source of the contemporary repudiation of censorship in the West depends on something that may be distinctive to modernity, an emphasis upon the dignity of the individual.

This respect for individuality has its roots both in Christian doctrines and in the not unrelated sovereignty of the self reflected in state-of-nature theories about the foundations of social organization. Vital to this approach is the general opinion about the nature and sanctity of the human soul. This can be put in terms of liberty—the liberty to become and to do what one pleases. The old, or traditional, argument against censorship was much less individualistic and much more political in its orientation, making more of another sense of liberty.

According to that sense, if a people is to be self-governing, it must have access to all information and arguments that may be relevant to its ability to discuss public affairs fully and to assess in a competent manner the conduct of the officials it chooses.

In the circumstances of a people actually governing itself, it is obvious that there is no substitute for freedom of speech and of the press , particularly as that freedom permits an informed access to information and opinions about political matters.

Whether anyone who thus rules unjustly, or otherwise improperly, can be regarded as truly understanding and hence truly controlling his situation is a question not limited to these circumstances. The shift from the more political to the more individualistic view of liberty may be seen in how the constitutional guarantees with respect to speech and the press are typically spoken of in the United States.

Restraints upon speaking and publishing , and indeed upon action generally, are fewer now than at most times in the history of the country.

This absence of restraints is reflected as well in the very terms in which these rights and privileges are described. To make much of freedom of expression is to encourage a liberation of the self from the constraints of the community. It may even be to assume that the self has, intrinsic to it or somehow available to it independent of any social guidance, intimations of what it is and what it wants.

Thus, liberation may be seen in the desire of most people to be free to pursue their own goals and life plans—which may involve a reliance upon standards and objectives that are solely their own.

It is tempting, in such circumstances, to adopt a radical subjectivism that tends to result in a thoroughgoing relativism with respect to moral and political judgments.

One consequence of this approach is to identify an ever-expanding array of forms and media of expression that are entitled to immunity from government regulation—including not only broadcast and print media books and newspapers but also text messaging and Internet media such as blogs , social networking sites, and e-commerce sites. This means, among other things, that a people must be prepared and equipped to make effective use of its considerable political power.

Even those rulers who act without the authority of the people must take care to shape their people in accordance with the needs and circumstances of their regime. This kind of effort need not be altogether selfish on the part of such rulers, since all regimes do have an interest in law and order, in common decency, and in a routine reliability or loyalty.

It should be evident that a people entrusted with the power of self-government must be able to exercise a disciplined judgment: What is particularly difficult to argue for, and to maintain, is an arrangement that, while it leaves a people clearly free politically to discuss fully all matters of public interest with a view toward governing itself, routinely prepares that same people for an effective exercise of its considerable freedom.

In such circumstances, there are some who would take the case for, and the rhetoric of, liberty one step farther, insisting that no one should try to tell anyone else what kind of person he should be. There are others, however, who maintain that a person is truly free only if he knows what he is doing and chooses to do what is right. Anyone else, in their view, is a prisoner of illusions and appetites, however much he may believe that he is freely expressing himself.

There are, then, two related sets of concerns evident in any consideration of the forms and uses of censorship. One set of concerns has to do with the everyday governance of the community; the other, with the permanent shaping of the character of the people. The former is more political in its methods, and the latter is more educational. It should be instructive to consider how the problem of censorship has been dealt with in the ancient world, in premodern times, and in the modern world.

Care must be taken here not to assume that the modern democratic regime, of a self-governing people, is the only legitimate regime. Rather, it is prudent to assume that most of those who have, in other times and places, thought about and acted upon such matters have been at least as humane and as sensible in their circumstances as modern democrats are apt to be in theirs.

It was taken for granted in the Greek communities of antiquity, as well as in Rome, that citizens would be formed in accordance with the character and needs of the regime. This did not preclude the emergence of strong-minded men and women, as may be seen in the stories of Homer , of Plutarch , of Tacitus , and of the Greek playwrights. But it was evident, for example, that a citizen of Sparta was much more apt to be tough and unreflective and certainly uncommunicative than a citizen of Corinth with its notorious openness to pleasure and luxury.

Presiding over religious observances was generally regarded as a privilege of citizenship: A refusal to conform, at least outwardly, to the recognized worship of the community subjected one to hardships. And there could be difficulties, backed up by legal sanctions, for those who spoke improperly about such matters. The force of religious opinions could be seen not only in prosecutions for refusals to acknowledge the gods of the city but perhaps even more in the frequent unwillingness of a city no matter what its obvious political or military interests to conduct public business at a time when the religious calendar, auspices , or other such signs forbade civic activities.

Indicative of respect for the proprieties was the secrecy with which the religious mysteries, such as those into which many Greek and Roman men were initiated, were evidently practiced—so much so that there does not seem to be any record from antiquity of precisely what constituted the various mysteries. Respect for the proprieties may be seen as well in the outrage provoked in Sparta by a poem by Archilochus 7th century bce in which he celebrated his lifesaving cowardice.

Athens , it can be said, was much more liberal than the typical Greek city. This is not to suggest that the rulers of the other cities did not, among themselves, freely discuss the public business. But in Athens the rulers included much more of the population than in most cities of antiquity—and freedom of speech for political purposes spilled over there into the private lives of citizens. This may be seen, perhaps best of all, in the famous funeral address given by Pericles in bce.

Athenians, he pointed out, did not consider public discussion merely something to be put up with; rather, they believed that the best interests of the city could not be served without a full discussion of the issues before the assembly.

There may be seen in the plays of an Aristophanes the kind of uninhibited discussions of politics that the Athenians were evidently accustomed to, discussions that could in the license accorded to comedy be couched in licentious terms not permitted in everyday discourse.

The limits of Athenian openness may be seen, of course, in the trial, conviction , and execution of Socrates in bce on charges that he corrupted the youth and that he did not acknowledge the gods that the city did but acknowledged other new divinities of his own. One may see as well, in the Republic of Plato , an account of a system of censorship, particularly of the arts, that is comprehensive. Not only are various opinions particularly misconceptions about the gods and about the supposed terrors of death to be discouraged, but various salutary opinions are to be encouraged and protected without having to be demonstrated to be true.

Much of what is said in the Republic and elsewhere reflects the belief that the vital opinions of the community could be shaped by law and that men could be penalized for saying things that offended public sensibilities, undermined common morality , or subverted the institutions of the community.

Such regimes should be compared with those in the age of the good Roman emperors, the period from Nerva c. Much of what can be said about ancient Greece and Rome could be applied, with appropriate adaptations , to ancient Israel.

The stories of the difficulties encountered by Jesus , and the offenses he came to be accused of, indicate the kinds of restrictions to which the Jews were subjected with respect to religious observances and with respect to what could and could not be said about divine matters.

It may be seen as well in the ancient opinion that there is a name for God that must not be uttered. It should be evident that this way of life—directing both opinions and actions and extending down to minute daily routines—could not help but shape a people for centuries, if not for millennia, to come.

But it should also be evident that those in the position to know, and with a duty to act, were expected to speak out and were, in effect, licensed to do so, however cautiously they were obliged to proceed on occasion.

On an earlier, perhaps even more striking, occasion, the patriarch Abraham dared to question God about the terms on which Sodom and Gomorrah might be saved from destruction Genesis But such presumptuousness on the part of mere mortals is possible, and likely to bear fruit, only in communities that have been trained to share and to respect certain moral principles grounded in thoughtfulness.

The thoughtfulness to which the Old Testament aspires is suggested by the following counsel by Moses to the people of Israel Deuteronomy 4: Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land which you are entering to take possession of it.

This approach can be considered to provide the foundation for the assurance that has been so critical to modern arguments against censorship John 8: It should be remembered that to say everything one thought or believed was regarded by pre-Christian writers as potentially irresponsible or licentious: Christian writers, however, called for just such saying of everything as the indispensable witness of faith: Thus, we see an encouragement of the private—of an individuality that turned eventually against organized religion itself and legitimated a radical self-indulgence.

Perhaps no people has ever been so thoroughly trained, on such a large scale and for so long, as the Chinese. Critical to that training was a system of education that culminated in a rigorous selection, by examination, of candidates for administrative posts. Particularly influential was the thought of Confucius — bce , with its considerable emphasis upon deference to authority and to family elders and upon respect for ritual observances and propriety. Cautiousness in speech was encouraged; licentious expressions were discouraged; and long-established teachings were relied upon for shaping character.

It has been suggested that such sentiments have operated to prevent the spread in China of opinions supportive of political liberty. Blatant oppressiveness, and an attempt to stamp out the influence of Confucius and of other sages, could be seen in the wholesale destruction of books in China in bce. But the Confucian mode was revived thereafter, to become the dominant influence for almost two millennia.

Its pervasiveness may well be judged oppressive by contemporary Western standards, since so much depended, it seems, on mastering the orthodox texts and discipline.

Whether or not the typical Chinese government was indeed oppressive, effective control of information was lodged in the authorities, since access to the evidently vital public archives of earlier administrations was limited to a relative few. In addition, decisive control of what was thought, and how, depended in large part on a determination of what the authoritative texts were—something that has been critical in the West, as well, in the establishment of useful canons, both sacred and secular.

It may also be based on scholarship and the use of critical methods in the interest of advancing a taste for literature, art, learning, and science. Among the heirs of Greece and Rome and of Israel were the Christians of varying professions.

Perhaps the most dramatic form of censorship in Christendom was that displayed in the development by the Roman Catholic Church of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum , a list of proscribed books, the origins of which go back in a primitive form to the 5th century ce and which continued to have official sanction well into the 20th century. The most spectacular instance of the silencing of a thinker of note may well have been the restrictions placed upon Galileo in The orthodoxy protected by an institution such as the Index probably had to be a system of thought in which much was made of certain books, particularly if other publications should seem to challenge in significant respects the teachings of the canonical texts.

This must have appeared even more acute a problem when means became available, especially after the invention of printing , to produce and distribute books in large quantities. The establishment of a fairly precise orthodoxy led to a perhaps unprecedented recourse to creeds.

Thus, for example, the Nicene Creed was promulgated in ce. It was devised to fend off a heretical threat to Christian doctrine—and it led, partly because of a unilateral change in wording made by the Western church, to a schism that has continued since between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

Thus, it very much mattered which doctrines people were taught and what came to be believed—and this was largely determined, as it usually is, by the action of some authority, ecclesiastical or temporal. Similar developments can be seen in the Islamic world to this day.

Google's selective social conscience

Leave a Reply

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution, for example, corporate censorship.. Governments and private organizations [citation needed] may engage in censorship. Books, newspapers, magazines, broadcast media and Internet access are censored in Saudi Arabia.. In , Reporters Without Borders described the government as "relentless in its censorship of the Saudi media and the Internet", and ranked Saudi Arabia th out of countries for freedom of the press. Anti-censorship page The purpose of this page is first, to link to things that censors have tried to ban, and more generally to show how the Internet can be .