Censorship
The growing use of the World Wide Web has allowed countless methods to expand our ability to share and distribute information. Email and online chats gives us virtually immediate access to friends, colleagues and family while blogging is transforming the way journalism is being provided. In addition, websites like Wikipedia and others are expanding the availability of all sorts of information.
These online sources allow speech to thrive in a way never before known. There are virtually no limitations with on-line communication, and until recently, there have been no gatekeepers.
With that said, every individual needs to be responsible for how they speak and what they say or write. With every freedom comes responsibility. Every individual who chooses public office, or is considered a public figure, needs to be willing to have public scrutiny, disagreement, and opposition when it comes to their decision making. It comes with the territory.
Censorship is simply defined as the control of expression, speech or communication. It is usually associated with governments or governing bodies in their attempt to control the content of information and attempt to stabilize the environment or society. Most refer to censorship when it restricts a person’s ability to express publicly their thoughts, ideas or perceptions. It may also be expanded to restricting entire concepts and/or value systems and judgments.
Another form of censorship may be the restriction of available information by “cleaning it up”. We see people attempting this all the time when the information comes in conflict with the current thinking of the organization or government. Political correctness is a common example of sanitizing information. Demonizing individuals or information also occurs as a mechanism to censor thoughts and ideas.
Preserving the Internet's open forum is of paramount importance if we are to sustain free speech. Limiting access to certain information or restricting the use of the internet will impede the enormous potential of our twenty first century communication tool. It would be similar to trying to ban the printing press in centuries past.
We must support legislation that continues to allow this freedom. We cannot expect decade-old laws passed before the invention of the internet to be sufficient. Current censorship laws and practices seem to try and limit or squelch speech that wouldn’t be limited if it were off-line. These types of practices undermine our free-speech rights.
When we are confronted with censorship, we need to acknowledge it and hold those accountable who are attempting to stifle our free speech and limit access to available information.
No one forces anyone to read this blog or others. Every individual should be able to view the content and guage its worth.
These online sources allow speech to thrive in a way never before known. There are virtually no limitations with on-line communication, and until recently, there have been no gatekeepers.
With that said, every individual needs to be responsible for how they speak and what they say or write. With every freedom comes responsibility. Every individual who chooses public office, or is considered a public figure, needs to be willing to have public scrutiny, disagreement, and opposition when it comes to their decision making. It comes with the territory.
Censorship is simply defined as the control of expression, speech or communication. It is usually associated with governments or governing bodies in their attempt to control the content of information and attempt to stabilize the environment or society. Most refer to censorship when it restricts a person’s ability to express publicly their thoughts, ideas or perceptions. It may also be expanded to restricting entire concepts and/or value systems and judgments.
Another form of censorship may be the restriction of available information by “cleaning it up”. We see people attempting this all the time when the information comes in conflict with the current thinking of the organization or government. Political correctness is a common example of sanitizing information. Demonizing individuals or information also occurs as a mechanism to censor thoughts and ideas.
Preserving the Internet's open forum is of paramount importance if we are to sustain free speech. Limiting access to certain information or restricting the use of the internet will impede the enormous potential of our twenty first century communication tool. It would be similar to trying to ban the printing press in centuries past.
We must support legislation that continues to allow this freedom. We cannot expect decade-old laws passed before the invention of the internet to be sufficient. Current censorship laws and practices seem to try and limit or squelch speech that wouldn’t be limited if it were off-line. These types of practices undermine our free-speech rights.
When we are confronted with censorship, we need to acknowledge it and hold those accountable who are attempting to stifle our free speech and limit access to available information.
No one forces anyone to read this blog or others. Every individual should be able to view the content and guage its worth.
posted by Anonymous at 6:30 AM
4 Comments:
What you say is true, EXCEPT that businesses, organizations, hospitals, governments and others have the right to limit the use of their resources. Sure they might be picking on you at FMHHS, but the computers are there for proper business use, not the free use of employees for whatever purposes they want. The hospital is not and cannot deny individuals the right to read your blog. But, they don't have to make it available on their system. Your opinions are not part of the daily business operations of the hospital and if the administration deems you an impediment to the proper conduct of business, they have the right to make that decision. Suck it up and go on. If FMHHS associates want to read your blog, they will do so at home or the library or wherever else they can access a computer.
Allow me to clarify one comment. "The hospital is not and cannot deny individuals the right to read your blog." What I meant is that they cannot prohibit anyone from reading it at an appropriate time. In their opinion, work hours are not the appropriate time.
Just thought I would also Post this here in case you would not see it on the "Access Denied" posting. This is a direct reply to your question about the "likes of you"
I believe you have taken the "likes of you" out of context.
If you will read the statement again I did say "There are far greater matters to occupy the staff than to read opinion's from the likes of you and I and everyone else that cares to comment on this blog." The "likes" that I was referring to is we as citizens posting our personal opinions, on matters that have been posted for discussion. I believe that is why these sites are called BLOGS,if you have a problem with that do not post a place for comments to be written. Just post your opinion and hope everyone will read it and agree with you. As I have said before the reason I read your Blog is that you do have some informative
posting, but as of late I am sorry to say you seem to have gone off on the deep end, with your constant negative posting of FMH and the Insurance Companies. You will have some that agree with you, but you will also have some that do not. As the old saying goes "If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen." I still say an employer has the right to ban personal use of Business owned computers as long as an employee is in the building where the computers are based. Thats my opinion and you have yours, but ultimately it will be the Administration at FMH that will decide, regardless of what we or anyone else thinks. They issue the paychecks. I'm sure if you check job descriptions they do not include reading BLOGS.
Sounds like Nightowlnurse needs to move on. Im glad she is on duty while patients are asleep, sounds like her attitude would not be in the best interest of the patients,if she is that unhappy with FMH and its rules. Might be nicotine withdrawal.
Post a Comment
<< Home